GOD’S COVENANTS
Other Books by Gary North
An Economic Commentary on the Bible, 31 vols. (1982–2012)
Marx’s Religion of Revolution (1968, 1989)
An Introduction to Christian Economics (1973)
Puritan Economic Experiments (1974, 1988)
Successful Investing in an Age of Envy (1981)
Government by Emergency (1983)
Backward, Christian Soldiers? (1984)
75 Bible Questions Your Instructors Pray You Won’t Ask (1984)
Coined Freedom (1984)
Unconditional Surrender (1980, 2010)
Conspiracy: A Biblical View (1986)
Honest Money (1986)
Unholy Spirits (1986, 1994)
Dominion and Common Grace (1987)
Inherit the Earth (1987)
Liberating Planet Earth (1987)
Healer of the Nations (1987)
The Pirate Economy (1987)
Is the World Running Down? (1988)
When Justice Is Aborted (1989)
Political Polytheism (1989)
The Hoax of Higher Criticism (1990)
Victim’s Rights (1990)
Westminster’s Confession (1991)
Christian Reconstruction (1991), with Gary DeMar
The Coase Theorem (1992)
Salvation Through Inﬂation (1993)
Rapture Fever (1993)
Tithing and the Church (1994)
Crossed Fingers (1996)
The Covenantal Tithe (2011)
GOD’S COVENANTS
GARY NORTH
© Gary North, 2014
Point Five Press
This book is dedicated to
the McDurmon children:
R.J., Jed, Max, Dominic, Lucy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction to Part 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Transcendence/Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Hierarchy/Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Ethics/Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Oath/Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Succession/Inheritance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion to Part 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction to Part 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Creation vs. Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Revelation vs. Reason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Theonomy vs. Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. Casuistry vs. Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. Theocracy vs. Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion to Part 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vii
vii
1
3
5
14
22
30
38
47
50
53
61
70
78
86
95
98
99
P
PREFACE
This is a book about God’s covenants, written for Christian laymen. Laymen rarely study these covenants in detail or even superﬁcially. Even more rare is their consideration of the covenants of rival
worldviews. Yet every worldview has a doctrine of the covenants that
parallels the Bible’s doctrine. They diﬀer only in content. In short, covenants are inescapable concepts. It is never a question of covenants vs.
no covenants. It is always a question of whose covenants.
I have learned over many years of advertising my commercial
books and reports that consumers oﬀer two reactions to sales oﬀers
that a marketer must overcome: disbelief and apathy. For consumers,
these reactions are revealed in two brief questions: “Says who?” and
“So what?” If a seller cannot overcome these two universal objections,
he will not make a sale.
In Part 1, I deal with the ﬁrst question. In Part 2, I deal with the
second.
Part 1 deals with the structure of God’s covenants. To overcome
“Says who?” I have quoted extensively from the Bible. I have included
many direct quotations, so that the reader will not have to look them
up. Readers tend not to look up passages whose book, chapter, and
verse number are merely mentioned.
Part 2 reveals the nature of the contemporary debate over the interpretation and application of the Bible’s covenantal categories:
Christianity vs. Darwinism. The battleﬁeld is society. Each outlook has
a speciﬁc view of society that results from its interpretation of the covenants. These rival social outlooks cannot be reconciled, because their
rival interpretations of the covenants cannot be reconciled.
I have learned from over four decades of interaction with Darwinist intellectuals that Christians are more likely to accept the Darwinists’ deﬁnitions and applications of the covenants in social aﬀairs than
Darwinists are likely to accept the Christians’ deﬁnitions and applications of the covenants in social aﬀairs. The Darwinists are far more
self-conscious than the Christians are. They are far more ready to do
ix
x
GOD’S COVENANTS
battle to have their view of the covenants adopted by, or imposed on,
society. Darwinists constantly battle in every area of life to extend their
agenda. Most Christians rarely do. Darwinists battle to get their deﬁnitions accepted by society, which enhances their ability to get their
agenda accepted. The Christians do not and have not for about three
centuries.
Until Christians understand, accept, and begin to implement the
Bible’s deﬁnitions of the covenants and their judicial content, they will
continue to ride in the back of humanism’s bus.
I
INTRODUCTION
This is a book about two covenantal eras: (1) the Old Covenant,
which God established with Adam, which ended forever at the fall of
Jerusalem to the Romans in A.D. 70; and (2) the New Covenant, which
God established with the second Adam, Jesus Christ, which began
with His resurrection from the dead.
This book also deals with a rival covenant, established between
Satan and Adam, which will exist until the ﬁnal judgment.
This book discusses three covenantal units that have operated in
history from the beginning: individual, church, and family. It then discusses a fourth covenantal institution, civil, which began after the Fall
of man.
I hope this is an easy book to understand. It should be. The Bible is
very clear about these covenantal issues. Unfortunately, Bible commentators reject some of the conclusions that the Bible makes regarding the continuing authority and relevance of God’s covenants, or that
are implications of biblical teachings regarding the covenants. So, they
have on occasion done their best to muddy the waters, obscuring the
clarity of the biblical texts. For example, a major and continuing muddying of the textual waters has been implemented for this passage:
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
were of this world, then would my servants ﬁght, that I should not be
delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence (John
18:36).
I cover this in Chapter 10.
I divide the book into two sections: (1) the biblical covenant’s
structure; (2) social theory. For my development of Part 1, I rely heavily on Ray R. Sutton’s book, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (1987).
With respect to Part 2, I begin with a presupposition: Social theory
is an inescapable concept. It is never a question of social theory vs. no
social theory. It is always a question of whose social theory. Neverthe1
2
GOD’S COVENANTS
less, at least a billion Christians prefer to ignore the fact that what the
Bible teaches about many topics has major implications for society. It
is a useful exercise to remind Christians that there are rival views of
the covenants. It is also useful to remind them that there are rival
views of society, which are themselves inescapable implications of rival
views of the covenants. Rival social theories lead to conﬂict, especially
over implementation.
As you read this book, please pay close attention to the cited biblical texts. What they say is far more important than what I say about
them.
I have used the King James Version throughout. There are reasons
for this. One is that it remains the most popular translation in the
United States. Over half of the Bibles sold are KJV. Second, the language of the KJV is both powerful and unique. I ﬁnd it easier to remember ancient English words in passages. Third, Strong’s Concordance is tied to the KJV. I have used Strong’s all of my adult life. Additionally, Strong’s word numbers are tied to the KJV. These I use in my
research to discover usage. Finally, I used an ancient word processing
system, WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS (1990), which works almost seamlessly with an ancient Bible search program, WordSearch for DOS.
WordSearch uses the KJV and Strong’s numbers.
Ii
INTRODUCTION TO PART I:
The Biblical Covenant’s Structure
Beginning with the researches of George Mendenhall in the 1950s,
Bible scholars, liberals and conservatives, have come to recognize that
the Mosaic covenant has a particular structure. It has ﬁve points.
There have been various attempts to label these ﬁve points, but they
boil down to these: God’s transcendence and presence, hierarchical authority, ethics, oath, and succession. This can be expressed by an acronym: THEOS. This is the Greek word for God.
In 1963, a book by Westminster Seminary’s Meredith G. Kline appeared: Treaty of the Great King. It was a brief commentary on the
Book of Deuteronomy. Following Mendenhall, Kline divided Deuteronomy into ﬁve sections. He then made comparisons of this structure
with suzerainty treaties of the Middle East in the second millennium,
B.C. They, too, had the same ﬁve-point structure. He concluded that
this is evidence that Deuteronomy was written in the second millennium, B.C., and not almost a millennium later in the ﬁrst millennium,
B.C., which liberals have long insisted. Kline reprinted this commentary in his larger book, By Oath Consigned (1972).
In writing my economic commentaries on the ﬁve books of Moses
(Pentateuch), I discovered that two other books are structured by this
ﬁve-point model: Exodus and Leviticus. The Pentateuch itself is structured in terms of it.
Genesis: origins (sovereignty)
Exodus: covenant (authority)
Leviticus: boundaries (law)
Numbers: sanctions
Deuteronomy: inheritance (succession)
David Chilton in his Days of Vengeance (1987) has shown that the
book of Revelation is structured in terms of it.
3
4
GOD’S COVENANTS
In social theory, I have classiﬁed these categories as sovereignty,
authority, law, judgment, and kingdom.
In economics, I have classiﬁed them in terms of these questions:
Who’s in charge here?
To whom do I report?
What are the rules?
What happens to me if I obey? Disobey?
Does this outﬁt have a future?
I presented these in my Publisher’s Preface to Ray Sutton’s 1987
book, That You May Prosper.
In each chapter, I present one of the biblical covenant’s ﬁve points.
Then I describe brieﬂy how this category applies to each of the four
covenantal units: individual, church, family, and civil.
There is a fifth covenant, which is in fact the first: the dominion
covenant. This is God’s original covenant with mankind (Genesis 1:26–
28). I titled the original volume in my economic commentary on the
Bible The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (1982). This covenant is still
binding on humanity. It defines humanity. It establishes mankind as
God’s agent or representative in dealing with nature: the creation. It
identifies God as the Creator, who is therefore sovereign. God is totally
sovereign.
1
1
TRANSCENDENCE/PRESENCE
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar oﬀ? Can
any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the
LORD. Do not I ﬁll heaven and earth? saith the LORD (Jeremiah
23:23–24).
A. Dominion Covenant
The God of the Bible is the Creator. Genesis 1:1 tells us that God
existed before He spoke the universe into existence. He created it out
of nothing. This doctrine of creation—unique to the Bible—implies
that God is separate from His creation. He is not an extension of the
creation, nor is the creation an extension of Him. This is the Bible’s
deﬁnitive answer to all variations of the religion of pantheism.
The passage in Jeremiah tells us that the God of the Bible is inﬁnite. He is omnipresent. There is nowhere in the creation where He is
absent and does not see. There is no place to hide. This is the Bible’s
deﬁnitive answer to all variations of the religion of deism.
God is simultaneously transcendent to the creation, yet present
with it. This makes biblical religion unique.
In pantheism, God is said to be immanent in the creation, meaning
a part of it. He shares its being, and it shares His. Pantheism confuses
God’s presence with His immanence. It denies the Creator/creature
distinction, which is fundamental for biblical religion.
In deism, God is said to be transcendent over the creation, but
completely removed from it. Its supreme analogy is a wound-up clock.
God created the cosmic clock and then departed. The clock is impersonally ticking away. This is the logic of deism. It is doubtful that any
deist argued for a distant, uninterested God, because deism arose in
5
6
GOD’S COVENANTS
seventeenth-century Europe within the culture of Christianity. But this
is the logic of deism’s mechanistic theology.
Christianity teaches cosmic personalism—a universe that inescapably reﬂects God. Paul wrote:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for
God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that
they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they
gloriﬁed him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in
their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of
the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,
and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things (Romans
1:18–23).
The god of pantheism is personal, yet not fundamentally diﬀerent
from any other living being. All creation shares some element of the
same being. Pantheism’s god is therefore not inﬁnite. God is understood to be more powerful than other beings, wiser, more versatile, but
He is not inherently diﬀerent from the creation or from man. He is Dr.
God, while the rest of humanity is merely Mr. But any man or woman
in principle can earn a doctorate one of these days. So, God’s person is
essentially the same as any man’s person: more powerful, at least for
now; ethically superior, at least for now; but not fundamentally diﬀerent. The universe is therefore personal, but it reﬂects only itself, not a
higher, sovereign, separate being. The universe is seen as a cosmic organism. “We’re all in this together!” God’s mercy is not sure, for He is
not omnipotent. God’s ﬁnal judgment is not sure, for He is not omnipotent. The universe is therefore autonomous, answering only to itself.
The God of deism is personal, yet totally removed from the creation. He is transcendent, but not present. Deism’s god is not inﬁnite,
for He shares existence with the creation. The creation does not reﬂect
the comprehensive personhood of the God of the Bible; at most, it reﬂects His orderliness. The universe is seen as a cosmic mechanism.
Ethics is irrelevant to a machine. God’s mercy is irrelevant. Final judgment is irrelevant. The universe is therefore autonomous, answering
only to itself.
Transcendence/Presence
7
In contrast, the Bible teaches cosmic covenantalism. The universe
is not autonomous. It is the creation of God. It reﬂects God. It therefore testiﬁes to the ethical perfection of God. It therefore condemns
fallen man. Man in his rebellion against God has no excuse. The universe is not autonomous; it answers to God.
B. Individual Covenant
Each individual is made in God’s image. Man is deﬁned as God’s
image. In this respect, he is unique in creation.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the ﬁsh of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them,
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the ﬁsh of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth (Genesis
1:26–27).
But God did not leave it at this. He added other stipulations.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:16–17).
Why did this constitute a covenant? Because it had the ﬁve points
of every covenant: sovereignty, authority, law, judgment, and kingdom.
A sovereign God created Adam and Eve to serve as His agents in history. He gave them an assignment and the authority to complete it:
rulership. This assignment had a law attached: do not eat of one tree.
This law had a judgment attached: death. Finally, the arrangement had
a kingdom oﬀer: multiplication.
Adam and Eve rebelled. God extended grace to them: extra years
of life and coverings, plus a promise: “And I will put enmity between
thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise
thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15).
Men rebelled again. So, God brought the great Flood: a negative
sanction. But there was also grace: Noah’s ark. Because of the image of
8
GOD’S COVENANTS
God in man, God after the Flood established a new sanction: execution for murder.
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of
every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of
every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth
man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God
made he man (Genesis 9:5–6).
Men understand this restriction on their own actions because of
their own hearts, on which the work of God’s law (not the law) is engraved.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto
themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean
while accusing or else excusing one another (Romans 2:14–15).
Everyone knows that he is not God. God therefore holds everyone
accountable because of this knowledge. First, because of God’s transcendence. God is above man, diﬀerent from man, and sovereign over
man.
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his
thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy
upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my
thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith
the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my
ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts
(Isaiah 55:7–9).
Second, because of God’s presence. This presence is judicial.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who
can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give
every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings (Jeremiah 17:9–10).
So, every person is in covenant with God. Man is a covenant being, made in God’s image from the beginning.
Transcendence/Presence
C. Church Covenant
9
The people of God are spoken of in Scripture as the bride of
Christ.
And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his
servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it
were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters,
and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord
God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath
made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be ar rayed in ﬁne linen, clean and white: for the ﬁne linen is the righteousness of saints (Revelation 19:5–8).
This is the church. The church extends into eternity.
And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying,
Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he car ried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed
me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from
God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone
most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal (Revelation
21:9–11).
There is no marriage apart from a covenant. Yet the church covenant is the model for the marriage covenant.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of
the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church
is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in
every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it
with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to
himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such
thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish (Ephesians
5:23–27).
So, it is incorrect to view God’s covenant as restricted to the individual alone. It applies to at least one corporate entity: the church.
As we shall see, it also applies to two other corporate entities.
10
GOD’S COVENANTS
D. Family Covenant
The family is often said to be the basic unit of society. This assertion is wrong. First, every society also has civil government (Romans
13:1–7), so the family has at least one equally authoritative, equally
universal institutional rival. Second, the family is a derivative institution, as we have already seen. The church is the model for the family.
The love of a husband for his wife was said by Paul to be modeled after
Christ’s love for His church. Equally important, the church extends
into eternity. The family does not.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither
marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in
heaven (Matthew 22:29–30).
So, the family, while a universal human institution, along with civil
government, is not the primary institution in history. The church is.
The argument that the family is the most basic unit of society is usually associated with the social philosophy of organicism. Organicism is
wrong. The Bible teaches covenantalism. The Bible teaches that the
family must always be understood as one aspect of God’s overall general with mankind—the dominion covenant (Genesis 1:26–28)—which
in the post-Fall age encompasses individuals, churches, families, and
civil governments.
God made a covenant with Abraham. This covenant involved Abraham’s descendants. Abram, whose name in Hebrew meant high father, had his name changed to Abraham, father of nations. Yet he was
childless at the time. God told Abraham,
And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply
thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with
him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou
shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be
called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many
nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful,
and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed
after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a
God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee (Genesis 17:2–7).
God deals with families as corporate entities. He makes His covenant with them.
Transcendence/Presence
E. Civil Covenant
11
The civil covenant is the fifth covenantal arrangement. Unlike
family government, civil government was God’s covenantal response
to sin. It did not exist prior to the Fall.
Paul spoke of the civil magistrate as a minister of God. The magistrate’s assignment under God is to bring negative sanctions against
law-breakers.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whoso ever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God:
and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers
are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be
afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise
of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if
thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only
for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute
also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this
very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute
is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom
honour (Romans 13:1–7).
Notice that Paul spoke of higher powers and the powers that be:
plural. There are multiple covenantal powers, as well as multiple civil
authorities. There is no single covenantal institution that can lawfully
claim total obedience and monopolistic jurisdiction. Such authority
belongs only to God.
The civil government acts on behalf of God. It brings negative
sanctions against evil-doers, so that God need not intervene against
the entire society. Under the Mosaic law, whenever a body that had
died violently was discovered in a ﬁeld, and no one knew who had
committed this murder, the civil authorities were required to call in
the priests.
If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth
thee to possess it, lying in the ﬁeld, and it be not known who hath
slain him: Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they
shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain:
And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even
the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been
wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; And the elders
12
GOD’S COVENANTS
of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is
neither eared nor sown, and shall strike oﬀ the heifer’s neck there in
the valley: And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them
the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in
the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy
and every stroke be tried: And all the elders of that city, that are next
unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: And they shall answer and say, Our hands have
not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O
LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay
not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge. And the blood
shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent
blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the
sight of the LORD (Deuteronomy 21:1–9).
The judicial legacy of Sodom and Gomorrah is with us still. There,
the civil government did not deal with ﬂagrant evil. God brought corporate sanctions against all those who resided within their boundaries.
And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning,
that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like
the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim,
which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath: Even all
nations shall say, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this
land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger? Then men shall say,
Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their
fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out
of the land of Egypt: For they went and served other gods, and wor shipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them: And the anger of the LORD was kindled against this
land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book: And
the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and
in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day
(Deuteronomy 29:23–28).
Conclusion
God covenants generally with mankind as a species, for man is
made in His image. This began in the ﬁrst week of history. Man is
deﬁned in terms of the dominion covenant.
God in the post-Fall world covenants speciﬁcally with individuals,
with called-out assembles of disciples, with families, and with people
under the authority of lawfully ordained civil magistrates.
Transcendence/Presence
13
Covenantalism is biblical. God is separate from His creation, yet
present with it. Above all, He is present with it judicially. He is the
Creator and the Judge.
Organicism and mechanism are rival views. The ﬁrst is associated
with pantheism; the second is associated with deism. They are united
on this issue: The universe is operationally autonomous.
2
2
HIERARCHY/AUTHORITY
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the ﬁsh of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the ﬁsh of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth (Genesis 1:26–
28).
A. Dominion Covenant
First, God is talking to Himself. That means He is plural. This is an
unpleasant fact for monotheists of the Jewish and Islamic variety, not
to mention Unitarians, but the fact is presented clearly, early in the
Bible: God is plural. This is not the only passage in Genesis that
teaches this truth. Consider Genesis 11: the story of the tower of Babel.
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the
children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is
one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and
now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined
to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that
they may not understand one another’s speech (Genesis 11:5–7).
Second, this leads to a conclusion: There is unity in plurality. God
is one, yet plural. He is as plural as He is uniﬁed. Conclusion: Unity
and plurality are equally ultimate.
Third, this plural though uniﬁed God decided in joint consultation
to create mankind, which is also a plurality. Male and female created
14
Hierarchy/Authority
15
He them. Yet He dealt with them as a unit: mankind. Mankind as a
species is diﬀerent from every other species.
Fourth, the male-female distinction is common to most other species.
God placed mankind over the creation. Man is under God and
over the creation.
God even established the heavens to serve as cosmic clocks for
mankind to measure the passing of time.
And God said, Let there be lights in the ﬁrmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for sea sons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the ﬁrma ment of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And
God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also (Genesis 1:14–
16).
This means that in the grand scheme of things, the heavens serve
mankind. The sun and the moon have a purpose: to serve mankind.
This was true even before the creation of man. This means that the
universe is not impersonal. It is personal. It also reveals purpose.
There is no doctrine more foreign to modern Darwinism. The heart of
Darwinism is the denial of all purpose until the advent of man.
God placed man over the environment, which includes inanimate
resources and living things. They exist to serve man, as surely as the
sun and the moon exist in order to serve man. The Psalmist sang God’s
praises for this hierarchical arrangement.
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy ﬁngers, the moon and
the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art
mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou
hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him
with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the
works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep
and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the ﬁeld; The fowl of the air, and the
ﬁsh of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas
(Psalm 8:3–8).
Man reports to God. The rest of the creation reports to man. God
has delegated authority to man to act on His behalf. Man serves as a
mediator: representing nature to God and God to nature. When Adam
and Eve fell, nature suﬀered. This has not changed. “For we know that
16
GOD’S COVENANTS
the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now”
(Romans 8:22).
B. Individual Covenant
God made a covenant with Adam (Genesis 2). Eve was included in
this covenant as Adam’s wife. Adam answered directly to God under
His examination (Genesis 3:12). Next, Eve answered directly to God
(Genesis 3:13). Each received a punishment that was designed to ﬁt
the speciﬁc crime (Genesis 3:16–19).
Responsibility is individual. Each individual possesses comprehensive responsibility: thought, word, and deed. First, thought:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in
his heart. And if thy right eye oﬀend thee, pluck it out, and cast it
from thee: for it is proﬁtable for thee that one of thy members should
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if
thy right hand oﬀend thee, cut if oﬀ, and cast it from thee: for it is
proﬁtable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not
that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Matthew 5:27–30).
Jesus spoke of the sins of the eye and the hand—perception and
deed—to drive home this point. Second, word:
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they
shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words
thou shalt be justiﬁed, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned
(Matthew 12:36–37).
Such responsibility implies authority: the authority to speak eternally meaningful words. There are no idle words if each word will be
judged by God. Third, deed:
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose
face the earth and the heaven ﬂed away; and there was found no
place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened,
which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those
things which were written in the books, according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every
man according to their works (Revelation 20:11–13).
Hierarchy/Authority
17
This means that membership in a lawfully covenanted organization does not remove anyone’s personal responsibility for his individual actions. Final judgment is individual because the resurrection is individual. This is the doctrine of the one as it applies to hierarchy.
The doctrine of the Trinity implies the equal ultimacy of the one
and the many. The fact that men are responsible individually does not
mean that they are not responsible corporately. They are responsible
both individually and corporately to the God who is sovereign both individually and corporately. This is why all governments are responsible
corporately to God.
C. Church Covenant
The church is corporately covenanted to God, and therefore it is
responsible to God. It answers to God.
In Leviticus 4, we see corporate hierarchy in action: church and
state. The unintentional sins of oﬃcials had to be atoned for by animal
sacriﬁces. The priests possessed greater responsibility than the civil
rulers, so their sacriﬁce was more valuable: a bullock (verse 3) rather
than a male goat (verse 23).
When the priest sinned, he brought the entire nation under the
threat of God’s negative sanctions. So, civil representatives—the congregation—of the holy commonwealth participated in the sacriﬁce.
And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the
head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed
before the LORD (Leviticus 4:15).
Under the New Covenant, elders act on behalf of church members.
They possess a claim on double honor because of their added responsibility.
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture
saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And,
The labourer is worthy of his reward (1 Timothy 5:17–18).
Revelation 3 is the passage wherein John was told by God to write
letters to angels at each of seven churches. These were not supernatural angels, for whom there was no postal zip code. They were messengers—the same Greek word used for angel—meaning pastors.
18
GOD’S COVENANTS
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These
things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of
the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor
hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art luke warm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth
(Revelation 3:14–16).
This is corporate responsibility, which is mediated by pastoral authority.
D. Family Covenant
Eve was responsible to God through Adam. There is no text that
indicates that God spoke to her directly prior to His examination of
her after the Fall. She was also less responsible for her sin than Adam
was for his. This, for two reasons.
First, Adam was formed ﬁrst. “For Adam was ﬁrst formed, then
Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). God spoke directly to Adam. There was less
likelihood of his not knowing exactly who God was. He received God’s
instructions ﬁrst. He worked alone initially, naming the animals, learning about God and the garden. He possessed greater knowledge. With
greater knowledge comes greater responsibility (Luke 12:47–48).
Adam was then placed over Eve by God. Eve heard about all this from
Adam, not from God or from ﬁrst-hand experience.
Second, Eve was deceived. Adam sinned knowingly. “And Adam
was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Timothy 2:14).
So, the degree of personal responsibility diﬀered because of family
hierarchy. Those who are lower on the ladder of family responsibility
have less responsibility. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church:
Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be
burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children
ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children (2
Corinthians 12:14).
This has to do with the covenantal issue of inheritance. Children
are supposed to inherit assets from their parents. This is an aspect of
the expansion of the kingdom of God. It is also part of the process of
extending man’s dominion over nature.
Women in the family are subordinate to men: “For the man is not
of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man cre-
Hierarchy/Authority
19
ated for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:8–
9).
Responsibility is always individual.
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall
the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to
death for his own sin (Deuteronomy 24:16).
Nevertheless, in a case of family sacrilege, Achan and his entire
household were put to death. The father’s sin, with the connivance of
family members, had put the entire nation at risk: the wrath of God.
And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah,
and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons,
and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his
tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of
Achor. And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall
trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and
burned them with ﬁre, after they had stoned them with stones. And
they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the
LORD turned from the ﬁerceness of his anger. Wherefore the name
of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day (Joshua
7:24–26).
Achan represented his family before God. His family in turn represented the nation. In this system of hierarchical responsibility, God
enforced His law through civil government.
E. Civil Covenant
Moses’ father-in-law suggested that Moses set up a series of appeals courts, so that the long line of disputants in front of his tent
would be shortened. Moses took this advice (Exodus 18). This was not
a top-down system of rule. It was bottom-up.
We have seen that Leviticus 4 teaches that civil rulers were responsible for their own inadvertent sins. The priests had to oﬀer sacriﬁce on behalf of the civil rulers’ sins and on behalf of the nation. The
rulers were representatives of the nation before God. They were mediators.
David numbered the people of Israel, despite the fact that holy war
was not imminent. Joab warned David not to do this (1 Samuel 24:3).
David ignored Joab’s advice (verse 3). David soon paid the price, but
only indirectly. Seventy thousand men paid it directly.
20
GOD’S COVENANTS
For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came
unto the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying, Go and say unto David,
Thus saith the LORD, I oﬀer thee three things; choose thee one of
them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told
him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee
in thy land? or wilt thou ﬂee three months before thine enemies,
while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy
land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent
me. And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now
into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not
fall into the hand of man. So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel
from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the
people from Dan even to Beer-sheba seventy thousand men (2
Samuel 24:11–15).
David preferred to avoid the embarrassment of being pursued by
his enemies. He even misinterpreted Gad’s message. Gad had not said
that David’s enemies would capture him, only pursue him. David was
willing to accept, on behalf of the nation, seven years of famine.
God was comparatively merciful. He sent a pestilence that killed
“only” 70,000 men—not a gender-neutral distribution. These men had
been numbered by David. Their commander, David, had sinned. Of
course, so had they. God was really after them. He used David, the civil
mediator, to get to them. “And again the anger of the LORD was
kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go,
number Israel and Judah” (2 Samuel 24:1).
Lesson: There is a civil hierarchy of responsibility. When civil
rulers do the wrong thing, the people represented by them suﬀer the
consequences.
This has not changed in the New Covenant era. Pontius Pilate attempted to frighten Jesus because he possessed the power of life and
death over Him. “Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I
have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?” (John
19:10). Jesus’ response was to insist that Pilate possessed such power
only because God had granted it to him. “Thou couldest have no
power at all against me, except it were given thee from above” (John
19:11a).
Pilate was a Roman oﬃcial. He was not under the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus then drew a conclusion: “Therefore he that delivered me
unto thee hath the greater sin” (John 19:11b). Implication: The Jews
were under the Mosaic law and were therefore more responsible than
Pilate was, as Rome’s agent. This two-part argument convinced Pilate
Hierarchy/Authority
21
to try once again to persuade the Jewish rulers not to ask him to crucify Jesus (verse 12).
The rulers of Israel insisted that Jesus be cruciﬁed. “But the chief
priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus” (Matthew 27:20). This leadership decision
proved costly.
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to
it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and
on our children (Matthew 27:24–25).
This corporate self-maledictory oath—a covenant oath—sealed Israel’s doom. About 40 years later, Israel revolted against Rome. The
Roman legions invaded Israel, burned the temple, and scattered the
people.
Paul wrote of civil magistrates that they are ministers of God (Romans 12:4). A minister ministers, that is, he mediates between God
and man.
Conclusion
The covenant has an element of hierarchy. This means representation. Adam spoke for God to Eve. Adam and Eve together spoke and
acted on behalf of the creation. When God cursed them, He also
cursed the creation (Genesis 3:19).
Hierarchies are inescapable.
3
3
ETHICS/LAW
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of
Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the
man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for
in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:15–
17).
A. Dominion Covenant
Adam faced a positive command in the garden: to dress it. This
was stage one in the comprehensive command given to all mankind:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the ﬁsh of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth (Genesis 1:28).
God gave Adam a negative command: Do not eat from the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil. Everything else was permitted. But
God placed a “no trespassing” sign around one tree. This was God’s
private, exclusive property. Around it was an ethical boundary.
Law is an invisible boundary. It declares certain thoughts, words,
and deeds to be oﬀ limits.
Every covenant has boundaries. Without boundaries, there is no
covenant.
Before the Fall, there was a boundary. After the Fall, God added
two more boundaries: around the tree of life and around the garden.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to
know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take
also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD
God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from
whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the
22
Ethics/Law
23
east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a ﬂaming sword which
turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life (Genesis 3:22–
24).
The history of mankind until the advent of Jesus was a history of
additional boundaries. There were boundaries around prohibited sacriﬁces. Cain violated this boundary, so God rejected his sacriﬁce.
But unto Cain and to his oﬀering he had not respect. And Cain was
very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain,
Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou
doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin
lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt
rule over him (Genesis 4:5–7).
In each case, there was grace before there was law. God gave Adam
life and the garden. Then He imposed a law. God gave Adam and Eve
animal coverings for their bodies before He set up the two new boundaries. He gave Cain agricultural bounty before He imposed the sacriﬁcial system. This points to an important biblical conclusion: Grace
precedes law. Man is always in debt to God. God is never in debt to
man. But is grace a debt? Yes, for it increases our responsibility. “For
unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and
to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more”
(Luke 12:48).
Jesus described the history of mankind in terms of the parable of
the talents. An owner delegates responsibility over economic assets to
his servants. This is an act of grace. Then he departs. This provides an
arena for testing. God did the same with Adam in the garden.
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country,
who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And
unto one he gave ﬁve talents, to another two, and to another one; to
every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his
journey (Matthew 25:14–15).
There were boundaries around each servant’s capital. Each servant
had an equivalent degree of responsibility. Each would be held accountable in terms of the original allocation of capital.
There are laws of commission and laws of omission.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not,
that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but
sin that dwelleth in me. I ﬁnd then a law, that, when I would do good,
24
GOD’S COVENANTS
evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the
law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ
our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but
with the ﬂesh the law of sin (Romans 7:19–25).
B. Individual Covenant
Begin with the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). These are two
sets of ﬁve commandments each: priestly (vv. 2–12) and kingly (vv. 13–
17). The ﬁve commands in each of the two sets parallel the ﬁve points
of the biblical covenant model.
The commandments are directed at individuals. They are followed
in the next three chapters by a series of case laws that are also individual laws.
God made a covenant with Noah, who represented his family:
But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into
the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with
thee (Genesis 6:18).
After the Flood, Noah represented more than his family. He represented all of creatures on earth.
And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed
after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl,
of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go
out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my
covenant with you; neither shall all ﬂesh be cut oﬀ any more by the
waters of a ﬂood; neither shall there any more be a ﬂood to destroy
the earth (Genesis 9:9–11).
To get to this extension of Adam’s covenant, there had been
boundaries. They were the supreme physical boundaries in man’s postFall history: the boundaries of the ark. Inside, there was life. Outside,
there was death.
As soon as the water receded, Noah oﬀered a sacriﬁce. “And Noah
builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of
every clean fowl, and oﬀered burnt oﬀerings on the altar” (Genesis
8:20). He imitated Abel, not Cain.
Ethics/Law
25
God made a covenant with Abraham. There were boundaries involved: anatomical.
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my
covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed
after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised (Genesis
17:9–10).
Citing Jeremiah 31, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews described God’s covenant in terms of laws written on individual hearts.
For ﬁnding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the
Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and
with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made
with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead
them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the
Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their
hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people
(Hebrews 8:8–10).
The promise was to a people, but the fulﬁllment is manifested in
individuals. The principle of the one and the many—unity and diversity—is maintained.
C. Church Covenant
Church law is seen most clearly in Paul’s warnings to the church at
Corinth to honor the Lord’s Supper, which is a positive sanction.
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for
another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come
not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order
when I come (1 Corinthians 11:33–34).
There are also negative requirements.
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacriﬁce, they sacriﬁce to
devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of
devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of
devils (1 Corinthians 10:20–21).
26
GOD’S COVENANTS
Paul told Timothy to exercise leadership in the church at Ephesus
(1 Timothy 1:3). This meant that he should teach the church to enforce
the law ecclesiastically.
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing
this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless
and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that deﬁle themselves with
mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there
be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:8 –
10).
Paul challenged the church at Corinth for its lax attitude toward
sexual sins (1 Corinthians 5).
The ﬁrst church council debated the Mosaic law as it applied to
gentiles. The council then sent this letter to the regional churches:
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no
greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from
meats oﬀered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled,
and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do
well. Fare ye well (Acts 15:28–29).
Then there is the Great Commission:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto
me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world. Amen (Matthew 28:18–28).
There can be no church without a covenant, and no covenant
without law.
D. Family Covenant
There are boundaries in marriage. They include and exclude. Jesus
was clear about this: one man, one wife, permanently, unless one of
them breaks the marriage covenant by breaking the law against adultery.
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one ﬂesh? Wherefore
Ethics/Law
27
they are no more twain, but one ﬂesh. What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why
did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to
put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of
your hearts suﬀered you to put away your wives: but from the begin ning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (Matthew 19:5–9).
The author of the epistle to the Hebrews wrote: “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undeﬁled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).
There are economic requirements. “But if any provide not for his
own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith,
and is worse than an inﬁdel” (1 Timothy 5:8).
There are hierarchical requirements.
Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy
father and mother; (which is the ﬁrst commandment with promise;)
That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them
up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:1–4).
There are emotional requirements.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and
gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a
glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but
that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love
their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself
(Ephesians 5:25–28).
There is no covenant apart from laws. This applies to the marriage
covenant.
E. Civil Covenant
Under the Mosaic Covenant, the civil government enforced a multitude of laws. The civil government was enforced through a system of
courts (Exodus 18). After Moses had implemented Jethro’s suggestion,
the nation covenanted with God (Exodus 19). Then God gave them the
28
GOD’S COVENANTS
Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Then He gave them the case laws
(Exodus 21–23).
John the baptist was asked by tax collectors and Roman soldiers
about the morality of their callings. He warned them that they were
under restraints.
Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master,
what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that
which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him,
saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to
no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages
(Luke 3:12–14).
The Pharisees tried to compromise Jesus by making Him say
something negative about the hated Roman rulers. They failed. He
made it clear that Caesar, representing the civil government, possessed
valid claims to obedience. Jesus used a coin that had Caesar’s image on
it to make His point: Private property rights are bounded by valid
ownership claims by the civil government.
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the
things that are God’s (Matthew 22:19–21).
Paul wrote to Timothy that God’s law is good. Then he provided a
list of Mosaic civil case laws that he regarded as good.
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing
this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless
and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that deﬁle themselves with
mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there
be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:8 –
10).
Conclusion
Every covenant is marked by laws. These laws serve as boundaries
for thought, word, and deed. There are limits beyond which men may
not lawfully pass. The archetype is the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil.
Ethics/Law
29
Some laws are positive, such as the archetype positive law: Exercise dominion.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the ﬁsh of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them,
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the ﬁsh of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth (Genesis
1:26–28).
Some laws are negative, such as the archetype negative law: Do not
eat from this tree. But there are always laws.
4
4
OATH/SANCTIONS
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant,
then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all
the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and
an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the
children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the
people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD
commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All
that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words
of the people unto the LORD (Exodus 19:5–8).
A. Dominion Covenant
God made a covenant with Adam. Adam broke it. God made a
covenant with Abraham. The Israelites broke it when they preferred
bondage under Pharaoh to service under God by way of Moses (Exodus 5:20–21).
The nation of Israel had assembled at Mt. Sinai. God was about to
renew His covenant with them, the covenant that He had established
with Abraham 430 years before (Galatians 3:17). This covenant renewal began with an oath.
The oath bound the people as a nation to God. He in turn bound
Himself to the nation of Israel. It was a mutual promise.
After the oath was ratiﬁed, it was followed by the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). To these were added speciﬁc laws that applied the
principles of these commandments to speciﬁc circumstances (Exodus
21–23). But before the law came an oath.
When we look at the covenant God made with Abraham, we ﬁnd
that this oath was unique. God promised that He would honor it. He
conﬁrmed this is a unique way. He gave Abram—not yet re-named
Abraham (father of nations)—special instructions.
30
Oath/Sanctions
31
And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she
goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove,
and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and divided
them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the
birds divided he not. And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. (Genesis 15:9–11).
That night, an amazing event took place.
And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark,
behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between
those pieces. In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of
Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates (Genesis 15:17–18).
What was this all about? Like the ﬁre that went before the escaping
Israelites by night, so did this ﬁre consume the pieces of the dismembered animals. Symbolically, the cut animals represented both
parties of the covenant, Abraham and God. He who violated the covenant would be cut up and consumed: negative sanctions. The sacriﬁcial animals on the ﬁery altar symbolized the broken covenant.
There was a promise of positive sanctions: “Unto thy seed have I
given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river
Euphrates.” There would be a great multitude of heirs. “And he
brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell
the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So
shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to
him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:5–6).
There had to be an oath sign to ratify this covenant. For God, it
was the ﬁre passing through the cut-up animals. For the men of Israel,
this oath-sign was circumcision. “This is my covenant, which ye shall
keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child
among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the ﬂesh of
your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and
you” (Genesis 17:10–11). Without this sign on his ﬂesh, no Israelite
could claim the promises of the covenant.
The promise was that in the fourth generation after Israel went
down to Egypt, the nation would conquer Canaan. “But in the fourth
generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (Genesis 15:16). The fourth generation, born in the
wilderness, had not been circumcised. So, as soon as they had crossed
32
GOD’S COVENANTS
the Jordan River into Canaan, Joshua ordered the men circumcised
(Joshua 5:8).
Israel was given another oath-sign: Passover. Here, the nation one
night each year celebrated their deliverance from Egypt.
Thou mayest not sacriﬁce the passover within any of thy gates, which
the LORD thy God giveth thee: But at the place which the LORD thy
God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacriﬁce the
passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that
thou camest forth out of Egypt (Deuteronomy 16:5–6).
Passover was an act of covenant renewal. Only those who had
been circumcised had lawful access to this rite. “And when a stranger
shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all
his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and
he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person
shall eat thereof” (Exodus 12:48).
B. Individual Covenant
A covenant is sealed by an oath before God. This oath is a special
kind: self-maledictory (“bad speaking”). The oath-taker calls down
God’s negative sanctions himself, should he ever break the law of the
covenant. But, by ratifying the oath, he claims legally the promised
positive sanctions. This is what Abram did on behalf of his heirs. He
had no heirs, but he believed God’s promise. “And he believed in the
LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6).
Abraham exercised faith in God’s promise. The author of the
epistle to the Hebrews cited this passage.
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he
should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not
knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and
Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a
city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God
(Hebrews 11:8–10).
He had no city. He trusted God to provide a city, not for him but
for his heirs: the fourth generation after Jacob’s descent into Egypt.
God fulﬁlled His promise in Joshua’s day, right on schedule.
The gentiles became the heirs of the promise to Abraham: “And I
will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in
Oath/Sanctions
33
thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). Paul
wrote to the church of Galatia:
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye
be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the
promise (Galatians 3:26–29).
We are heirs of the Promise to Abraham. But the oath sign has
changed from circumcision, which was restricted to Israelite males, to
baptism, which is open to all: Jews, gentiles, slaves, freemen, men, women. But there is a mandatory oath.
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou
shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with
the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Romans 10:8–10).
Peter told the assembled crowd at the temple:
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath
made that same Jesus, whom ye have cruciﬁed, both Lord and Christ.
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said
unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what
shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is
unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar oﬀ, even as
many as the Lord our God shall call (Acts 2:36–39).
John the baptist had warned: “He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but
the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).
Abraham believed God, and God accounted this for righteousness.
It is no diﬀerent today. The covenant comes in the form of a promise
that involves sanctions, positive and negative. It is sealed by a formal
verbal oath before God: a confession of faith in God’s promises of
either blessing or cursing. Ever since the days of Abraham, the personal covenant has had an oath-sign: circumcision or baptism.
34
GOD’S COVENANTS
The other oath-sign is the Lord’s Supper. It is a corporate act of
covenant renewal. But the covenant’s negative sanctions for sin fall on
individuals.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the
Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread,
and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body
and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him
eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not
discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly
among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we
should not be judged (1 Corinthians 11:26–31).
C. Church Covenant
God made a promise to Israel: “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom
of priests, and an holy nation” (Exodus 19:6a). Peter quoted this passage and applied it to the church. “But ye are a chosen generation, a
royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should
shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into
his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9). But didn’t this promise apply only to
the nation of Israel? No, for it was a conditional promise, meaning an
“if . . . then” promise. “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed,
and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me
above all people: for all the earth is mine” (Exodus 19:5).
Repeatedly, Israel had disobeyed God. With the cruciﬁxion of
Christ, God ﬁnally severed His covenantal relation with the nation of
Israel. Jesus had warned the leaders of Israel that this would happen.
“Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from
you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matthew
21:43). What was this new nation? The church. Paul wrote: “And as
many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and
upon the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).
What is the church’s oath? Paul provided one:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was
manifest in the ﬂesh, justiﬁed in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1
Timothy 3:16).
What is the church’s oath-sign? The administration of baptism. It
does this on behalf of God.
Oath/Sanctions
35
There is also covenant renewal: the Lord’s Supper. He who is
judged by the church as being in sin is separated from this rite. He becomes an excommunicant, i.e., a former communicant. This is the
church’s most fearful sanction. It means being handed over to Satan.
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together,
and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver
such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the ﬂesh, that the spirit
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 5:4–5).
D. Family Covenant
The family begins with a marriage. Two individuals make mutual
promises under God. In doing so, they become one. Paul compared
this with the love of Christ for His church.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of
the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church
is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in
every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
church, and gave himself for it (Ephesians 5:23–25).
To deny that the mutual promises of husband and wife are permanently binding is necessarily to argue that Christ’s promise to His
church is not permanently binding, and that the church’s promise to
Him is not permanently binding.
There is a covenant oath. It is public and verbal. Mutual promises
are made by the parties. In most cultures, some sort of exchange is
made, such as rings. There may be other traditions marking the “cutting” of the covenant. The Bible does not mandate any form of oath,
but because the family is established by covenant, societies have marriage vows. These are legally binding promises. The common Christian oath in English is the promise “to have and to hold ‘til death do us
part”—old English, surely.
Unlike the church covenant, there is no covenant renewal ceremony.
E. Civil Covenant
The civil government is a covenant institution because God has
appointed its oﬃcers as ministers (Romans 13:4). The question is:
Where in the Bible is a civil covenant oath described?
36
GOD’S COVENANTS
Under the Mosaic covenant, a king was anointed by a prophet or a
high priest. Samuel anointed Saul and David. In Solomon’s case, David
had already sworn as king that Solomon would inherit. He told this to
Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest.
Even as I sware unto thee by the LORD God of Israel, saying, As suredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon
my throne in my stead; even so will I certainly do this day. Then
Bath-sheba bowed with her face to the earth, and did reverence to
the king, and said, Let my lord king David live for ever. And king
David said, Call me Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and
Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. And they came before the king. The
king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord,
and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring
him down to Gihon: And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet,
and say, God save king Solomon (1 Kings 1:30–34).
With Israel’s kings, death was the judicial basis of the transfer. The
anointing of the next king was an act of covenant renewal.
Prior to the ﬁrst Israelite king, there were judges. They possessed
the power of life and death. We have no information on the formal ce remony involved in establishing a judge in his oﬃce.
Jesus Christ—as prophet, priest, and king—formally ended Israel’s
oﬃces of prophet, priest, and king. This became ﬁnal in A.D. 70 with
the fall of Jerusalem. Church ministers have at times been called
priests, but they are not priests. They do not oﬀer blood sacriﬁces.
High civil oﬃcers used to be called kings, but after 1918, kings have
had no power in the West. Post-Mosaic priests and kings may have the
trappings of the Mosaic oﬃces, but in fact they are merely ordained
oﬃcers of very diﬀerent institutions. Civil oﬃcers are no less ministers
just because there are no supreme oﬃcers called kings.
In planning a revolt against his father David, Absalom sought support from the people of Israel, pretending to be a just man (2 Samuel
15:2–6). So, there was some form of public investiture of civil authority. After Solomon was anointed, someone told the dying King David,
“And Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king
in Gihon: and they are come up from thence rejoicing, so that the city
rang again. This is the noise that ye have heard” (1 Kings 1:45). The
public verbally aﬃrmed the anointing of the king.
In the modern world, naturalized citizens swear allegiance to the
nation. Military recruits swear allegiance to the nation. Common cit-
Oath/Sanctions
37
izens do not take a formal oath, but it is implied, which is why they are
allowed to vote. Voting is modern politics’ act of covenant renewal.
Conclusion
There are positive and negative sanctions in every covenant. There
is also an oath, either verbal or implied. Those who want to gain the
beneﬁts of the covenant must accept the penalties of breaking its stipulations.
God promises to uphold a covenant by intervening to enforce its
sanctions if the enforcing agency fails to enforce it, so a covenant is
more than a contract. God does not promise to enforce a contract if
one of the parties violates its stipulations. A covenant is a monopoly in
the way that a contract is not. A contract resembles a covenant, which
is a model, but a contract is not a covenant. There is no lawful binding
oath to God. God will not enforce it. It is not like a vow to God, which
has much greater authority (Numbers 30).
5
5
SUCCESSION/INHERITANCE
And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I,
behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after
you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the
cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of
the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant
with you; neither shall all ﬂesh be cut oﬀ any more by the waters of a
ﬂood; neither shall there any more be a ﬂood to destroy the earth
(Genesis 9:8–11).
A. Dominion Covenant
This passage contains the ﬁrst explicit reference to “covenant” in
the Bible. It conﬁrms the assignment given by God to Noah, which in
turn re-conﬁrmed the assignment that had been given to Adam and
Eve (Genesis 1:26–28).
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the
dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every
fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the
ﬁshes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving
thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I
given you all things (Genesis 9:1–3).
This covenant extends from Adam to those born in the ﬁnal generation in history.
And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and
every living creature of all ﬂesh; and the waters shall no more become a ﬂood to destroy all ﬂesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud;
and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant
between God and every living creature of all ﬂesh that is upon the
earth (Genesis 9:15–16).
38
Succession/Inheritance
39
This is the dominion covenant. It deﬁnes mankind in terms of
man’s exercise of dominion over the creation and under God. It is a
hierarchical covenant, as all covenants are.
Because of Adam’s rebellion, which carried with it the negative
sanction of death, God added a redemptive element to the covenant, in
order to extend it through history. The redemptive element was based
a promise. “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15).
The next covenant in the Bible after Noah’s was between God and
Abraham. It involved the promise of land and descendants. It was a
covenant of inheritance, as all covenants are.
As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations
have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will
make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in
their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee,
and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed
after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of
Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And
God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore,
thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations (Genesis 17:4–9).
God made a promise to Abraham: The Canaanites would be disinherited by the fourth generation of Israelites after Jacob’s descent into
Egypt. “But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for
the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (Genesis 15:16). So, the
guaranteed inheritance of Abraham’s heirs would be at the expense of
the guaranteed disinheritance of the Canaanites. This illustrates a fundamental principle of covenantal inheritance: It always comes at the
expense of covenantal disinheritance.
Next, God made a covenant with the people of Israel under Moses.
It extended the covenant made with Abraham. It reconﬁrmed the
promise made to Abraham. It explicitly promised the negative sanction of disinheritance.
And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk
after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against
you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the
LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye
40
GOD’S COVENANTS
would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God (Deuteronomy 8:19–20).
This was not a prophecy in the sense of a forecast. It was a conditional promise: “If . . . then.”
The written New Testament says that there has been a replacement covenant for the Mosaic covenant (Hebrews 8:6–7). This covenant is said to be an everlasting covenant. “Now the God of peace, that
brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the
sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Hebrews
13:20). So, it has to be the same covenant as the one God made with
Noah. Rainbows still shine. Then what is diﬀerent about this covenant? Jesus Christ has replaced the high priest of the Mosaic covenant.
This covenant is the fulﬁllment of the Abrahamic covenant. So
said Zacharias, a priest, the father of John the baptist. He announced
this at the birth of his son, a relative of Jesus through his mother, Elizabeth. It is a covenant ﬁlled with blessings for the heirs of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed
his people, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the
house of his servant David; As he spake by the mouth of his holy
prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be
saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To
perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his
holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, That
he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of
our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. And thou, child, shalt be
called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of
the Lord to prepare his ways (Luke 1:68–76).
Who are these heirs? Paul said they are all those who believe in
Christ.
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the
same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that
God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the
gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So
then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham (Galatians 3:6–9).
Succession/Inheritance
B. Individual Covenant
41
Jesus said that the supreme covenantal inheritance is eternal life.
Eternal life involves this life, too.
Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you,
There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father,
or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and
brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life (Mark 10:28–30).
How can this be? Because a covenantal relationship is always hierarchical. God is supreme. Jesus taught that He, as the good shepherd,
will give eternal life to His subordinate sheep.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I
give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall
any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them
me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my
Father’s hand (John 10:27–29).
How could He guarantee this to His followers? Because of this: “I
and my Father are one” (John 10:30).
The Bible teaches that individuals who are covenanted with God
will, through their heirs, inherit the earth. Those who are meek before
God can and will exercise dominion over creation.
What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way
that he shall choose. His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall
inherit the earth. The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him;
and he will shew them his covenant (Psalm 25:12–14).
For evildoers shall be cut oﬀ: but those that wait upon the LORD,
they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall
not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not
be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves
in the abundance of peace (Psalm 37:9–11).
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5).
C. Church Covenant
The church will survive through the ages. Then it will enter eternity. It is the only human institution that will. The family won’t—no
42
GOD’S COVENANTS
marriage or reproduction (Matthew 22:30). The civil government
won’t—no sin to suppress. Jesus told the disciples:
Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I
appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:28–30).
He told them that the extension of the kingdom cannot be
thwarted—not even by hell, which the church, through the gospel,
puts under siege. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). (Note: The church is not under
siege by hell. The reverse is true.)
A promise was made by David in the Psalms.
A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send
the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine
enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the
beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the
dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou
art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:1–4).
This was a messianic prophecy. Jesus fulﬁlled it, as He told the
Pharisees. This silenced them permanently.
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him,
The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit
call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my
right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call
him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a
word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more
questions (Matthew 22:41–46).
Therefore, the process of subduing the earth continues. It will continue until death is overcome at the end of time.
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last
enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is
manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And
when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also
Succession/Inheritance
43
himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God
may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:25–28).
Jesus is in heaven. So, the extension of His kingdom rule has not
been done by Him in person. It has been done by His church, whose
members will inherit the earth. Satan also does not rule his kingdom
in person on earth. It is no less real than Christ’s kingdom.
D. Family Covenant
The issue of succession is most obvious in matters relating to the
family. A man thinks of inheritance by his sons. Abram asked God if
his servant Eliazar would be his heir, since Abram was childless (Genesis 15:2). God assured him that a biological son would be his heir,
which was good news for Abram (Genesis 15:4).
Under the Mosaic law, a man married to two women was not allowed to give the ﬁrst-born son of his beloved wife the double portion.
The ﬁrst-born son of the hated wife was to inherit the double portion,
if he was chronologically the ﬁrst-born son (Deuteronomy 21:15–17).
Biblical law had authority over emotions. A husband could not disinherit the son of the hated wife. She might remain hated, but her son
would inherit the double portion. Her legal status as the mother of his
ﬁrst-born son took precedence over her role in the family. This was
God’s aﬃrmation of economic continuity as a function of judicial
status. Inheritance is covenantal.
The issue of family inheritance is the issue of compound economic
growth. In most societies throughout history, social wealth has been
extended primarily through family inheritance. For the very rich, there
have been other heirs in history. In Medieval Europe, deathbed transfers of land from rich men to religious orders was common enough to
have laws associated with such transfers. But such property transfers
were not made in terms of compound economic growth in history.
They were a matter of personal inheritance in eternity. They were believed by rich men to serve as admission tickets into heaven, or at least
out of purgatory earlier. In general, it was assumed that sons would
work hard to preserve their inheritances and even expend them. But,
with landed wealth, economic growth was something of a zero-sum
aﬀair: one family’s gains were at the expense of another family. Only
when land value was increased by better technologies and better landuse practices did economic development in landed estates move from
44
GOD’S COVENANTS
zero-sum aﬀairs to net increases in wealth on one side of a property
boundary without imposing reduced ownership on the other side.
Disinheritance under biblical law is supposed to be for reasons of
ethics and confession of faith. If a son is cut oﬀ judicially by the civil
government or by the church, the family is allowed to cut oﬀ his inher itance. Biblically, it is obligated to do this. To do otherwise would be to
subsidize evil. But church law has never brought sanctions against
men who left an inheritance to excommunicated children. It is not just
that such laws would be diﬃcult to enforce. It is that considerations of
kinship are too powerful to allow such negative sanctions. The church
would be challenged as unlawfully interfering in judicially autonomous
family matters. The same restraint on state action prevails. Family inheritance is considered sacrosanct, except when the state imposes inheritance taxes. Here, the state has educated the public in state-funded
schools to authorize the state to violate family inheritances, at least for
the rich. The welfare state has made itself the co-heir. If Christian families saw their wealth as a tool of dominion in a covenantal war
between rival kingdoms, they would re-think the inheritance tax.
So strong is the commitment to the family as the supreme covenant in economic matters that the kingdom aspects of inheritance and
disinheritance play little role in people’s thinking. In inheritance, it is
clear that each wealth transfer is a zero-sum transaction. Wealth that
is transferred to one child is not transferred to another child. When
these children aﬃrm rival covenantal confessions, the disinheritance
of a covenant-breaking child is the disinheritance of Satan’s kingdom.
But few Christians see family inheritance in terms of the conﬂict of
kingdoms in history. The saying, “blood is thicker than water,” applies
to inheritance far more than it does to water.
E. Civil Covenant
Where there is crime, there must also be civil government (Romans 13:1–7). God does not let criminals go unpunished and unthreatened.
But what about crime? Will it get worse? Will good people be increasingly besieged by evil-doers, even as Lot was besieged in Sodom?
The Bible teaches otherwise.
But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the
house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains,
and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall ﬂow unto it.
Succession/Inheritance
45
And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the
mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he
will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law
shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations
afar oﬀ; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their
spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every
man under his vine and under his ﬁg tree; and none shall make them
afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. For all
people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk
in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever (Micah 4:1–5).
But when will these last days be? The author of the epistle to the
Hebrews said that they had already begun in his day.
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past
unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto
us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom
also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and
the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word
of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on
the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better
than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent
name than they (Hebrews 1:1–4).
Jesus is the heir of all things. His inheritance is greater than the inheritance of angels. So, what can Christians expect in the future? The
extension of God’s justice, including civil justice, across the face of the
earth.
Conclusion
The covenant with the ﬁrst Adam and the covenant with the
second Adam, Jesus Christ, both oﬀered an inheritance to God’s
people. This inheritance necessarily involves the progressive disinheritance of the enemies of Christ, as surely as the inheritance of the Israelites involved the disinheritance of the Canaanites.
The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open
unto their cry. The face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to
cut oﬀ the remembrance of them from the earth. The righteous cry,
and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.
The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth
such as be of a contrite spirit (Psalm 34:15–18).
46
GOD’S COVENANTS
For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be
cursed of him shall be cut oﬀ (Psalm 37:22).
For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are
preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut oﬀ (Psalm
37:28).
Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut oﬀ, thou shalt see it. I have
seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green
bay tree. Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him,
but he could not be found. Mark the perfect man, and behold the up right: for the end of that man is peace. But the transgressors shall be
destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut oﬀ (Psalm
37:34–38).
This is one of the continuing themes in the Bible. Covenant-keepers cheat themselves and their heirs by not believing these passages
and by not planning their lives in terms of the fulﬁllment of these
promises. This is what Bible prophecy is all about: believing the promises of God and then working to implement them.
Ci
CONCLUSION TO PART I:
The Biblical Covenant’s Structure
God deals with His creation by means of covenants. The primary
covenant is the dominion covenant (Genesis 1:26–28). God created
man to rule over creation on His behalf. This covenant deﬁnes mankind. It also deﬁnes the creation’s relationship to God. It was re-conﬁrmed with Noah (Genesis 9:1–3). It has never been repealed. In this
sense, there is only one covenant. It will never end. It will extend into
eternity, for it deﬁnes both man and the creation.
It was disrupted by Adam’s rebellion. We commonly call this modiﬁed covenant the Old Covenant, but this is misleading if it is not seen
as an extension of the original Adamic covenant in the garden.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:16–17).
God did not tell Adam to subdue the earth and multiply. He did
not have to. That was already part of the covenant. What God added
was a test, which had a negative sanction: death. Death marks men’s
covenants in history.
The Edenic covenant in turn was an extension of the pre-Adamic
covenant, where God spoke on Adam’s behalf before Adam’s creation.
God spoke representatively for Adam, meaning covenantally. This is
good news. We should rejoice in the fact that Christ, as High Priest,
speaks representatively for us again. “Who is he that condemneth? It is
Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right
hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us” (Romans 8:34). So
does the Holy Spirit.
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our inﬁrmities: for we know not what
we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that
47
48
GOD’S COVENANTS
searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because
he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God
(Romans 8:26–27).
There were modiﬁcations in the post-Fall Adamic covenant. The
main one was this: The civil covenant was added to deal institutionally
with sin.
The dominion covenant is still in force. The Adamic post-Fall covenant had a promise: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15). This promise was re-conﬁrmed with Abraham. It was fulﬁlled by Christ, the promised Seed.
Paul speciﬁcally said that Christ was this Seed. “Now to Abraham and
his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of
many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” (Galatians 3:16).
So, with the fulﬁllment of the promise made to Adam, the New
Covenant began. Christ crushed Satan’s head at the resurrection. The
New Covenant replaced the post-Fall Adamic covenant. But the postFall Adamic covenant was not strictly a replacement of the pre-Fall
Adamic dominion covenant. Neither does the New Covenant replace
the dominion covenant. Men are still under God, still over the creation, and still bound by the terms of that covenant.
So, there is a single covenant with four manifestations so far: preAdamic, pre-Fall, post-Fall, and post-resurrection. In the ﬁnal three,
the distinctions have to do with the covenantal sanction of death:
promised, imposed, and deﬁnitively removed, though not ﬁnally removed. Paul was clear about the centrality of Christ’s resurrection—so
adamant that he repeated himself in the same passage, which is unique
in all of his epistles.
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some
among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be
no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be
not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea,
and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testiﬁed of
God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that
the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins
(1 Corinthians 15:12–17).
There will be a ﬁfth manifestation after the ﬁnal resurrection.
Death will cease for resurrected covenant-keepers (1 Corinthians
Conclusion to Part I: The Biblical Covenant’s Structure
49
15:26). The civil covenant will be removed: no sin to suppress. So will
the marriage covenant.
The dominion covenant is the primary covenant, for it deﬁnes
mankind and the creation. It was announced before man was created.
It was implemented after Adam but before Eve. Its implementation
began with the additional announcement of the boundary of the tree
and the sanction of death. There had been no boundaries and no negative sanction in the pre-Adamic announcement of the covenant. So,
in this sense, the post-ﬁnal judgment manifestation of the pre-Adamic
dominion covenant will be the restoration of that original version of
the covenant: no deﬁning test of a boundary restriction and no negative sanction. We can get on with our work.
There was another covenant: the covenant with Satan. I discuss
this covenant in Part 2.
Iii
INTRODUCTION TO PART II:
Covenantal Social Theory
We have seen that the biblical covenant is divided into ﬁve sections. In this section, I apply this insight to social theory. The ﬁve aspects of the biblical covenant establish the ﬁve major categories of social theory: sovereignty, authority, law, judgment, and kingdom. There
are other aspects of social theory, limited only by the imaginations of
social theorists. But these ﬁve categories are inescapable for social the ory. All social theorists either invoke them or assume them.
If I am correct about my assertion that these ﬁve points are inescapable in developing social theory, then they must also be used by
non-Christian social theorists. Their ﬁve points must be applied in
ways that are consistent with the structure of the Bible’s ﬁve points, yet
diﬀerent from the Bible’s conclusions regarding the applications.
There is a second covenant in history. This is Satan’s covenant.
When the serpent tempted Eve, and Eve tempted Adam, a tree was involved. That tree was an aspect of point three of the biblical covenant
model: boundaries. To violate its boundaries would be to break God’s
law.
It would do something else. It would inaugurate Satan’s covenant.
Why? Because the prohibited meal was an oath sign for Satan’s covenant: point four. It would place Adam and Eve under a new, rival covenant. Just as eating from the tree of life would have been an oath-sign,
one which would have given them eternal life—the supreme positive
beneﬁt for covenant-keepers—so was eating from the forbidden tree.
So, whenever Adam and Eve ate from either tree, they would necessarily participate in a communion meal. God was not in the
Garden. Satan was not in the garden. But eating from either tree would
have constituted a covenantal act: their public, judicially binding acceptance of God’s covenant or Satan’s. Either way, the communion
meal would have served as a formal rejection of the rival covenant.
This is why Paul taught that eating at the table of Satan is prohibited.
50
Introduction to Part II: Covenantal Social Theory
51
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacriﬁce, they sacriﬁce to
devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of
devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of
devils (1 Corinthians 10:20–21).
In this section, I survey the implications of both covenants for social theory.
I believe that it would be academically fruitful to examine speciﬁc
theorists’ social systems in terms of these ﬁve points. It would also be
useful to classify varying conﬂicting approaches to social theory in
terms of these ﬁve categories. This book suggests some preliminary
questions to ask of the writings of “dead white male” social theorists—
as well as other shades and gender preferences.
I focus here on the dominant alternative to biblical social theory in
the modern world: Darwinism. Because virtually all academically serious and politically inﬂuential humanistic social theories in the West
are Darwinian to the core, I paint with a broad brush—or tar and
feather, as the case may be.
The Bible begins with a theory of the origin if the universe: the sixday creation. So does modern cosmology: the Big Bang. I cover this in
Chapter 6. Second, I deal with the resulting fundamental debate: creationism vs. evolutionism. Third, I cover the area of law: theonomy vs.
autonomy. Fourth, I deal with the debate over judgment: casuistry vs.
ideology. Finally, I explore the debate over civil government: theocracy
vs. democracy.
As you will see, there is a war between the two concepts of the
covenant as applied to social theory. This is because there is a war
between God’s covenant and Satan’s. There is no way to reconcile these
rival interpretations of the covenant. But there have been many attempts to reconcile them in the ﬁeld of social theory, always oﬀered by
Christian academics. This tradition goes back to the post-apostolic
church, when Christian defenders of the faith adopted Greek philosophical categories in preference to the Bible’s categories. They
claimed there was no contradiction. But there was.
Today’s Christian defenders of reconciliation propose what they
say are practical compromises, usually in politics, but they rarely or
never discuss the underlying covenantal bases of their proposed compromises. There is a reason for this: The content of their underlying
covenantal frameworks is some variation of the humanists’ content. So,
the proponents of reconciliation prefer not to discuss their presuppos-
52
GOD’S COVENANTS
itions in detail. Tactically speaking, I can hardly blame them. Ethically,
I do blame them. They are leading the sheep astray.
To see how far astray, read Part 2.
6
6
CREATION VS. EVOLUTION
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
This is the covenantal issue of origins.
The concept of origins is an inescapable concept. It is never a
question of origins vs. no origins. It is always a question of what origins.
There is a doctrine of origins in every cosmology. To understand
any cosmology, begin with its doctrine of origins.
Why is this issue so important? Because origins identify the source
of sovereignty in history. Rival theories of origins reveal rival theories
of sovereignty. Rival theories of origins reveal rival covenants.
To answer the question, “How does the world work?” we must
have a theory of origins. We ask: “How did the world work at the beginning?” The answer to the question leads to the next: “Does the
world still work this way?” All theories of origins oﬀer this answer:
“Yes and no.” The “yes” answer reveals a theory of continuity. The “no”
answer reveals a theory of discontinuity, also known as change. Every
theory of the world contains both continuity and discontinuity.
Are you the same person you were on your day of birth? Yes and
no. Genetically, there is great continuity. Your ﬁngerprints are the
same. So, if you were to say, “No, I’m really someone else entirely,”
people might suspect that you are insane (or else think you are a philo sophy professor—which in some ways can be a similar condition). Still,
in many ways, you are diﬀerent from the day you were born.
What is true of you is also true of the universe.
53
54
GOD’S COVENANTS
I. Christian Covenantalism
Divine Creation Out of Nothing
Sovereignty. The Bible teaches that God was here before the universe. It also teaches that God is diﬀerent from the universe. He created it by speaking it into existence. He did not assemble it out of bits
and pieces of pre-existing matter. He also did not create it as an extension of His own being. He spoke, day by day. It appeared, day by day—
not, be it noted, week by week or eon by eon. The universe reﬂects the
Creator.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they gloriﬁed him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:20–21).
The universe is therefore cosmically personal.
There is a fundamental diﬀerence between the Creator and the
creation. Biblical thought should begin with this presupposition.
Whenever it doesn’t, it begins to resemble anti-biblical thought.
Authority. “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). God was above the waters. This is
because God was above the creation. There is a hierarchy in the cosmos. God was above the creation in every sense. He ruled it as a king
rules a kingdom.
Here, the Bible teaches continuity. God is still above the creation.
Probably the most eloquent aﬃrmation of this is the ﬁnal section of
the book of Job, chapters 38–39. God describes Himself as absolutely
sovereign, beginning with the creation.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if
thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if
thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon
are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone
thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of
God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4–7).
Creation vs. Evolution
55
Law. The ﬁrst chapter of Genesis describes the week of creation.
God commands; the universe responds. God lays down the law. The
universe obeys.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and
herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose
seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:11–12).
Judgment. Day by day, God commands. Day by day, the universe
responds. Day by day, God oﬀers His evaluation of His day’s work.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the
waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:10).
And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good
(Genesis 1:21).
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very
good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day (Genesis
1:31).
God is the supreme evaluator. That is, He is the supreme judge. He
evaluated the results of His work, and He pronounced them good.
God asked Job rhetorically: “Shall he that contendeth with the
Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it” (Job
40:2).
As the supreme sovereign, God delegates authority, establishes
law, and imposes sanctions in terms of the degree of authority (Luke
12:48–49). These sanctions are positive and negative. He does this in
history, not just in eternity. His sanctions have eﬀects in history.
Kingdom. There is only one kingdom of God. It has two realms:
heaven and earth. It was created this way. God’s throne is in heaven.
His footstool is on earth.
And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the
LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by
him on his right hand and on his left (1 Kings 22:19).
The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD’S throne is in heaven: his
eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men (Psalm 11:4).
56
GOD’S COVENANTS
Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the
place of my rest? (Isaiah 66:1).
Jesus called the kingdom of God in history “the kingdom of heaven.” This kingdom operates the arena of history, where those who are
covenanted to God are engaged in spiritual and cultural warfare
against those who are covenanted to Satan. There will be no interruption of this perpetual and full-time conﬂict until the ﬁnal day of judgment.
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of
heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his ﬁeld: But
while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat,
and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought
forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in
thy ﬁeld? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that
we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up
the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reap ers, Gather ye together ﬁrst the tares, and bind them in bundles to
burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn (Matthew 13:24–30).
Matthew 13 is the major New Testament section that deals with
the kingdom of God/heaven. But several of His parables do, too. In all
of them, we learn that God’s kingdom is not exclusively or even mainly
an inner kingdom. It is a visible kingdom in history. Yet it has an invisible realm in heaven, where God’s throne is (Revelation 4).
God’s kingdom develops in history. It does not evolve into something diﬀerent.
Conclusion. The doctrine of God’s special creation insists that the
rate of change of geological and biological development in history is
radically discontinuous from the week of origins. God created the
earth in six days. He did not create it over eons of time. He created it
in a speciﬁc sequence, and He placed man over creation on the sixth
day. From the Fall of man onward, the world has been in sin and under
God’s curse (Genesis 3:17–19). This will not change until the ﬁnal
judgment: the ﬁnal discontinuous event in history.
The Bible teaches linear history: creation, fall, redemption, progress, and ﬁnal judgment.
Creation vs. Evolution
II. Non-Christian Covenantalism
Self-Creation Out of Something
57
Sovereignty. There are many rival theories of origins. Eastern religions oﬀer a theory of an eternal god, who is impersonal. It is conscious only of itself. Out of this god’s being came the creation. Into
that god creation will eventually return. Eastern religion tends to be
cyclical because its theory of origins and its theory of the ﬁnal end is
impersonal.
Modern evolutionary theory oﬀers a theory of origins called the
Big Bang. Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, a tiny compressed
speck of matter-energy exploded in a tiny fraction of a second. The
universe is the result of that cosmic explosion. Time elapsed: about
three seconds. But the basic explosion took place, scientists tell us, in
10 -43 seconds. That is a fraction of a second: speciﬁcally, 1 divided by
10 times 43 zeroes. That was the Plank Epoch. (I am not kidding; they
call this an epoch.) Then came the Grand Uniﬁcation Epoch. It lasted
10 -33 seconds. This was followed by the Electroweak Epoch, a long,
drawn-out epoch of 10 -12 seconds. That’s drifting along at about 12
trillionths of a second. Then came the Hadron Epoch, which clocked
in at 10 -6 seconds, a mere ten millionth of a second. “We were sailing
along, on Moonlight Bay. . . .” And so forth.
No one is allowed to ask, “But what existed before the speck?” He
is dismissed as a child who might ask his parent: “What existed before
God?” A parent is wise enough to reply: “God always existed.” This answer is not available to the evolutionary cosmologist. His answer is
much closer to Topsy’s view of her origins: “I just growed.” Call it
Uncle Tom’s Universe.
Authority. Evolutionary theory insists that, prior to man, there
was no cosmic purpose. The universe was not directional. It was not
personal. It just grew.
Then, late in the impersonal process (13.7 billion years), there was
a leap of being: man. Man has at long last brought purpose to the universe. He is self-conscious. He understands the laws of evolution. He
can manipulate his environment to achieve his goals. So, while man
did not create the universe, he has inherited it. By default, he is now in
charge. He has moved into a position of sovereignty—no higher court
of appeal—at least until the earth is invaded by a more powerful species, or a plague wipes all men from the earth, or a supernova kills
everything on earth. In any case, the heat death of the universe will
58
GOD’S COVENANTS
take place in about “one followed by 200 zeroes” years (pessimists), or
perhaps 1,000 zeroes (optimists), down the road. This ﬁnal event is regarded by scientists as close to inevitable: the culmination of the
second law of thermodynamics. (Universe: fast origin, slow development, even slower eschatology.)
The concept of “divine right” is simple to describe: no higher court
of appeal. Man possesses divine right in the conventional Darwinian
cosmology. The only major exception is the “deep ecology” movement,
which asserts that nature possesses superior authority. However, be cause nature is not able to defend itself self-consciously in the court of
public opinion, since it is devoid of consciousness, a defense of nature
requires men—deep ecologists—to speak on nature’s behalf. Mankind
will then judge the cogency of the deep ecologists’ arguments. So far,
mankind is not paying much attention to these arguments.
Law. Originally, there was only impersonal law: the law of cosmic
evolution. This was a combination of unbreakable astrophysical laws
and subatomic random changes.
Then life appeared—a supremely discontinuous event. Life is governed by impersonal biological and genetic laws that are interrupted
by random genetic mutations, most of which are destructive, but some
of which occasionally produce a more hardy species.
Man now is gaining greater understanding of the laws of impersonal nature, so he has become a source of directional change in nature. Cosmic impersonalism has therefore become cosmic personalism
in this sector of the cosmos. It’s a start. As the prophet Zechariah said,
“For who hath despised the day of small things?” (Zechariah 4:10).
Certainly not Darwinian evolutionists.
Judgment. There was no judge of the universe prior to the advent
of man. The universe was impersonal. It was heading nowhere in particular. It was and remains headed in general toward the heat death of
the universe, when the second law of thermodynamics will complete
its cosmic work: the complete consumption of kinetic (residual) energy. The eternal night of frozen matter will begin. But, on that day,
there will be no Judge who pronounces ﬁnal judgment on the history
of the universe, for there is no Creator who launched it. It just grew. It
will die. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
The universe is cosmically meaningless in the Darwinian worldview. It has temporary meaning only because mankind pronounces
judgment, day by day. But mankind is divided. No one speaks ﬁnally
for mankind. Not yet, anyway. So, mankind cannot not issue a ﬁnal
Creation vs. Evolution
59
word of judgment, except against God: the God who cannot possibly
be there.
Kingdom. The kingdom of man is a favorite doctrine of Darwinian evolutionists. It is the product of a leap of being: man’s ascent from
the lower animals. Man’s brain was a radical leap, something that
could not have evolved from minute steps imposed by his environment. This evolutionary leap cannot be explained by original Darwinism. Alfred Wallace, the independent co-discoverer with Darwin of the
principle of natural selection, and the co-author of their 1858 essay announcing their discovery, later became a spiritualist. He said that the
evolution of man’s mind could not have taken place as their theory had
asserted that natural selection must always operate.
The kingdom of man only exists in the sense of the dominion covenant: God’s command to all mankind to subdue the earth (Genesis
1:27–28). From the time of Adam’s rebellion (Genesis 3), the kingdom
of man has been divided into two parts: Satan’s and God’s. Each part
has two realms: historical and trans-historical, which in turn is divided
into heaven and hell. Each kingdom corporately seeks inheritance in
history. Only one will inherit in history: God’s.
Satan has a kingdom. It began early: at the time of his rebellion
against God. Most people are not formally covenanted to Satan by a
verbal oath in history, but they are covenanted by their rebellion
against God through Adam. The kingdom exists. It exists alongside
God’s kingdom, and it will do so until the day of ﬁnal judgment. It develops, as does God’s (Matthew 13:24–31). It does not develop into
something diﬀerent from what it was in principle from the rebellion of
Adam in the garden. This means that it does not evolve. It does develop or mature.
Conclusion. The Darwinian evolutionist insists that everything
has happened in a continuous way ever since the Big Bang. This is the
doctrine of uniformitarianism, which asserts that rates of geological
change have not changed. This was the bedrock foundation of original
Darwinism, which rested on Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian geology.
But the doctrine is being abandoned by modern Darwinists in order to
account for observed changes of prehistoric species in the paleontological record—changes that cannot be explained by a theory of small,
uniformitarian changes. In any case, the Big Bang was an incomparably discontinuous event.
60
GOD’S COVENANTS
Conclusion
Christian cosmology begins with God, who is a Creator God. He
relied on nothing outside Himself. He invoked no higher authority. He
was alone until the ﬁrst day of creation. He shared space with no one.
More than any other system of cosmology, the Christian doctrine of
origins is personal.
Darwinian cosmology begins with an impersonal speck of matter-energy. It is not quite a theory of the cosmic egg, which is found in
many pagan cultures, but it is close enough so as to fulﬁll the explanatory function of the cosmic egg. Its main advantage over the cosmic egg
is that no one goes looking for the cosmic chicken.
Christian cosmology has a theory of divine providence. God, who
created the universe, has established secondary laws governing the
cosmos. Yet He actively sustains it. He sometimes intervenes personally to provide direction for it. This is not deism.
Darwinian cosmology also has a theory of divine providence.
Mankind is the source of this providence, for man has appeared on the
scene late in the evolutionary process to provide meaning, direction,
and purpose to what had been a meaningless, directionless, and purposeless autonomous process. But why is this providence divine? By
default. There is no higher court of appeal than man’s court. This is
the doctrine of the divine right of man.
God deals with nature and man as a sovereign over His realm. He
has established the laws of nature. He has also established the laws of
human society. He enforces these laws.
Darwinian man deals with nature as a sovereign over his realm. He
dismisses God as a product of the human mind—a not-too-bright
mind—that has importance only to the extent that people believe in
God. God is said to possess no claim of sovereignty over either nature
or man, especially scientiﬁc man, meaning the scientiﬁc elite that controls the institutions of higher education.
The battle for the souls of men is fought in modern society in the
institutions of higher education. This is a replay of Israel’s young men
in the court of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1). The outcome will be much
the same. The kingdom of Babylon fell.
7
7
REVELATION VS. REASON
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth (John 17:17).
This is the covenantal doctrine of authority.
Authority is an inescapable concept. It is never a question of authority vs. no authority. It is always a question of whose authority.
Every worldview has a doctrine of authority. Authority is the repository of truth. Every worldview has a concept of truth. If there were
no truth, there could be no worldview—no integrating coherence in
the midst of disintegrating incoherence. There could therefore be no
society. A society’s worldview is the oﬃcially designated basis of
everyone’s coherence and understanding. It holds together the pieces,
meaning pieces of information but also the perspective of those who
gather them and analyze them.
The concept of authority is always hierarchical. Someone always
speaks in the name of the source of truth. The supreme authority does
not speak to everyone directly all of the time, or even most of the time.
In every society, there is always at least one oﬃcial voice of authority,
and usually more than one. The voice of authority is widely believed to
speak the truth. The voice of authority is the most reliable source of
accurate knowledge. It stands above all other sources of information,
wisdom, and coherence. By means of its access to the truth, the voice
of authority declares judgment.
The voice of authority speaks in the name of the sovereign. He
possesses legitimacy, or hopes to gain legitimacy, through his connection to the sovereign, as the sovereign’s designated representative. He
possesses delegated sovereignty, as a vassal possessed authority under
an emperor. This is the meaning of all authority.
61
62
GOD’S COVENANTS
I. Christian Covenantalism
Knowledge from on High
Sovereignty. Prior to the completion of the Bible, God spoke
through prophets, judges, priests, military leaders, and even kings.
Moses was a prophet.
And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for
Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel
hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses. And
there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the
LORD knew face to face (Deuteronomy 34:9–10).
Because God did not speak with equal clarity to all men, He desig nated others to speak for Him. He invested them with authority.
Without this investiture from the sovereign, no agent can claim legitimacy. Legitimacy is delegated from a greater authority and accepted
by lower authorities. Legitimate authority is grounded legally in sovereignty.
Authority. With the closing of the canon of Scripture, no voice of
authority can equal the Bible in its authority as the supreme voice of
authority in history. Of no other person’s word or book can this be
said: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is proﬁtable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
(2 Timothy 3:16).
Roman Catholics deny this. They assert that the Pope has equal
authority in matters of doctrine, as the supreme interpreter of the
Bible. This was made oﬃcial at Vatican I in 1870, but it had been asserted for over a thousand years. It was this assertion that led to the
resistance of Eastern Orthodoxy, and ﬁnally to Rome’s excommunication of an entire church in 1054. It was this assertion that persuaded
the Protestants to protest, beginning with Martin Luther in 1517. The
principle of Sola Sriptura is the bedrock foundation of Protestantism.
Because of man’s sin, his ability to understand and apply the Bible
in his life is undercut. The mind of man is twisted.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for
God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that
Revelation vs. Reason
63
they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they
gloriﬁed him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in
their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:18–22).
So, men need ﬁxed revelation from God: the Bible. This authority
judges all men who claim to have a superior voice of authority because
of a superior sovereign. We must test the spirits. “Beloved, believe not
every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many
false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). We test a supernatural spirit by testing its self-attesting representative. We use the
Bible to do this.
Men also need the Holy Spirit to assist them in their understanding.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will re prove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (John
16:7–8).
Law. The voice of authority lays down the law in the name of the
sovereign who established the law. He puts it in language that the
common man can understand.
And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons
of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all
the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end
of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the
feast of tabernacles, When all Israel is come to appear before the
LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read
this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together,
men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy
gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the
LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: And
that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and
learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whith er ye go over Jordan to possess it (Deuteronomy 31:9–13).
Supreme earthly authority passed from Moses to the Levitical
priests. This authority was the authority to read the written law before
the assembled nation. The law was ﬁxed. This ﬁxed law was the foundation of the priests’ judicial authority.
64
GOD’S COVENANTS
Judgment. It is not enough to understand the law and God’s revelation of Himself and His covenants. There must be appointed agents
who possess the authority to implement the law’s sanctions. But ﬁrst,
they must interpret the revelation of God’s law. Jesus told the disciples,
“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18). This same authority is possessed
by church elders in every era.
Judgment is more than oﬃcially imposing the law’s sanctions. It is
also understanding how God’s word applies to speciﬁc circumstances.
A biblical model is the church at Berea. “These were more noble than
those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness
of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were
so” (Acts 17:11). Judgment is the work of interpretation, declaration,
and implementation.
The Preacher—King Solomon—announced at the end of his philosophical treatise, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear
God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing,
whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13–14). A return to God’s revealed law, not more philosophy, is the solution to
man’s fundamental questions of this life.
Kingdom. The visible marks of a king are his stipulations and his
sanctions. Wherever these do not exist, there is no kingdom. The
kingdom of God is always marked by the authority of king’s law. This
must be His specially revealed law. Any form of law that is said to be
common to all mankind, supposedly based on a common reason, does
not identify who the Great King is. This is why, in the Mosaic Covenant, the law had to be read before the assembled nation once every
seven years (Deuteronomy 31:10–12). The only record of this laworder is the Bible. Its eﬀects had to be visible to covenant-breakers.
Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD
my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye
go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom
and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear
all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God
so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call
upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes
Revelation vs. Reason
65
and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this
day? (Deuteronomy 4:5–8).
Conclusion. The Bible is the voice of authority. Other forms of
knowledge are subordinate to the Bible. Reason is defective due to sin.
Man is ﬁnite. God is inﬁnite. The Bible is God’s means of providing reliable understanding so that men can exercise authority lawfully and
productively.
II. Non-Christian Covenantalism
Knowledge from Below
Sovereignty. Covenant-breaking man lodges sovereignty either so
far outside the creation that the sovereign—personal or impersonal—
pays no attention to man, as in pure deism or in Hinduism, or inside
the creation, where it is subject to the changes in the creation, as in animism and pantheism. Under these rival conditions, the voice of authority is equal to the sovereign. But, because the voice of authority is
clear and relevant, it eventually becomes the sovereign, operationally
speaking, for it is always speaking operationally in the here and now.
The guru in eastern religions speaks on behalf of a deity or nondeity (Buddhism). The ultimate sovereign is the One, which is not selfconscious. Subordinate deities may be said to exist, as in Hinduism,
but in both Hinduism and Buddhism, the world of change is maya: an
illusion. So, the guru speaks as a voice of a sovereign that is either not
aware of man or is only marginally more sovereign than man.
The supreme sovereign of modern Darwinism is man. Man understands the world around him, or at least that portion of the world that
is subject to human reason (Kantianism). This is the only part that
really matters, we are told. Beyond the domain of man’s reason, who
knows? It is beyond anyone’s control. It is purposeless. It cannot be appealed to successfully as a way of achieving one’s goals.
Authority. The guru of the West is a scientist. He speaks in the
name of scientiﬁc law. This law is usually highly mathematical. Higher
mathematics is not understood by most people. The book of higher
mathematics is a closed book except to initiates. This was also what
sustained the authority of ancient priesthoods as well. They knew a
great deal of astronomy. They therefore knew the calendar. They knew
when the ﬂoods would come in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China,
where society was dependent on canals and waterworks.
66
GOD’S COVENANTS
Even where mathematics is not the primary way to knowledge and
therefore control, some conceptual model is believed to oﬀer formally
trained practitioners access to the laws of the universe. Reason is seen
as the special way to knowledge, which is the road to power. “Knowledge is power,” we are assured.
The structure of authority is always hierarchical. The hierarchy of
power is seen as a hierarchy of knowledge. It always has been. Inside information has always been worth a lot of money because it is the road
to wealth and power. Today, this is usually open knowledge, in the
sense of being published, though in jargon that is closed to untrained,
“uninitiated” outsiders. Sometimes this knowledge is secret, as in “top
secret.” But it is always hierarchical. It is therefore priestly. The classical Greek word hierus was the word for “priest.”
Law. The supreme law today is overwhelmingly the law of mathematics. But the humanist cannot explain this. Why is it that laws of
formal logic—mathematics—prove so successful in natural scientiﬁc?
Why should a plaything of the mind—mathematical logic—correspond so closely with the operations of the external world, both animate and inanimate (“the quick and the dead”)? In 1960, Nobel Prizewinning physicist Eugene Wigner wrote an essay for a mathematics
journal: “The Unreasonable Eﬀectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” He pointed out this oddity. The correlation is simply
unreasonable.
The Darwinist cannot logically argue that the connection is based
on special creation. He cannot say that God imposed the laws of mathematics on large sections of the creation, and then He gave to some
people the mental ability to discover mathematical logical relationships and also their connections to the external realm of nature. The
Darwinist must ﬁnd some other explanation. So far, no one has.
The materialist rejects supernatural revelation as an authoritative
source of knowledge. He dismisses such knowledge as arbitrary. The
idea of revelation presupposes a God who does not exist and therefore
cannot reveal anything to man. Reason passes judgment on such a
God.
The problem is, there is no agreement among scientists on the
source of scientiﬁc laws, the universality of these laws, the reliability of
these laws, and the ability of men to implement them even when the
laws are reliable. Scientists disagree with each other as a way of life.
There are too many laws, too many scientists interpreting these laws,
and too many wrong turns. There is no agreement on universal prin-
Revelation vs. Reason
67
ciples of discovery and interpretation. There is no agreement on the
means of reaching agreement, other than reason. But there are conﬂicting views of what constitutes reason and logic and valid evidence.
This is the always divisive issue of epistemology: What do men know,
and how do they know it?
One of the bases for respect for authority is the public’s faith that
the law provides justice. But how can anyone know this in a world of
evolutionary law?
Judgment. The voice of authority must enforce his authority. Otherwise, the voice of authority has no authority. Enforcement requires
sanctions. Who has the legal authority to impose sanctions? There is
no agreement on this.
The judge is supposed to be predictable. He is not supposed to be
arbitrary. The contending parties in court are there because they were
not sure how the judge would decide. If both sides knew, one of them
would already have settled out of court.
The evolutionist has no theory of ﬁxed law. The whole point of
evolutionary theory is that conditions change, which leads to one species gaining an advantage over the others. This outlook was actually
imported by Charles Darwin from eighteenth-century Scottish legal
and sociological theory.
How can anyone have reliable conﬁdence that the judge in any
ﬁeld can and will apply justly the shifting principles of evolving law to
the shifting sands of his jurisdiction?
Kingdom. The kingdom of Darwinian man is the kingdom of
man’s authority. The source of this authority is the mind of man: reason. The mind of man and the deeds of man extend his kingdom in history. This is the faith of the rationalist. He declares that man must take
control over nature, for man possesses implicit authority over nature
based on scientiﬁc reason. That which is implicit in principle—authority—must be made progressively explicit in history.
This assertion regarding man’s authority raises an inescapable
philosophical and moral problem. The rationalist says that man is part
of nature. He insists that man participates only in nature, not simultaneously in a supernatural realm from which he derives his authority.
So, if man must take control of nature, then man must also take control of man. But, as C. S. Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man and
That Hideous Strength, this means that some men must take control of
all the others. Authority inescapably passes to the elite, which corporately possess appropriate specialized knowledge. We are told, “know-
68
GOD’S COVENANTS
ledge is power.” Indeed, it is. It is not possessed in equal measure by all
men.
On what basis can we place faith in the multiple minds of men?
What order can be found in the conﬂicting logic, conﬂicting claims,
and conﬂicting assertions of unbridled power, which mankind as a
species oﬀers? Where is the unity produced by all men’s minds? And if
such unity does not exist, where is the unity of autonomous man’s
kingdom? By what standard will his kingdom be understood, evaluated, and ruled by force?
There is sin in this world—man’s world. The rationalist, following
Plato, insists that we may and must trust the thought processes and
the supposedly personally disinterested conclusions of philosopher
kings. But why should we? Are they not human? Why should we trust
them to exercise authority on any basis other than personal self-interest? In any case, where are these philosopher kings?
Even if we ﬁnd them and voluntarily submit to them, how will they
defend our joint domain? Rival kings and revolutionists will deny their
claim until they are put in charge over the rest of us. Where is the
common human logic that can overcome the conﬂicting claims within
mankind? Where has there ever been a kingdom of unbiased reason, a
kingdom of unself-interested logic?
Conclusion. Man is the voice of Darwinian authority. This means
scientiﬁc man. Other forms of knowledge—intuitive, experiential,
emotive—are logically subordinate to reason. For now, reason is operationally defective due to ignorance and sin. Nevertheless, it must be
trusted. Yes, man is ﬁnite, but nothing is inﬁnite. Yes, man is ignorant,
but nothing is omniscient. So, man becomes the voice of authority by
default. He answers only to man. No higher authority can call man to
account. But other men do, and the wars go on. “From whence come
wars and ﬁghtings among you? Come they not hence, even of your
lusts that war in your members?” (James 4:1). Logic has a fearful rival:
lust.
Conclusion
The Darwinist looks at wars and devastation, and asks: “How can
anyone believe in God?” The Christian looks at the same wars and
devastation, and asks: “How can Darwinists believe in man?”
The Darwinist trusts in human reason. So does modern man in
general. But on what does this trust rest? Not on nature, which cares
Revelation vs. Reason
69
nothing for man. Not on scientiﬁc law, which is said to evolve with
nature, including human nature. Such law can become the plaything of
tyrants seeking to justify their power.
The Bible claims that it is authoritative. Modern scientiﬁc man
claims that it isn’t. The Bible’s claim is based on revelation of the Creator God. The scientist’s claim is based on his perception of the way
the world works . . . this week.
8
8
THEONOMY VS. AUTONOMY
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every
one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God,
and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep
his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (1 John
5:1–3).
The covenantal issue here is law.
Law is an inescapable concept. It is never a question of law vs. no
law. It is always a question of whose law.
The designated source of law is the oﬃcial god of any society. In
this sense, all law is inescapably theonomic: the law of some god. So,
the covenantal debate over law begins here: Who or what is the source
of law? Theonomy comes from two classical Greek words: theos (God)
and nomos (law). Autonomy comes from two classical Greek words:
autos (self) and nomos (law).
There are certain characteristics of God that are transferrable,
such as justice, mercy, wisdom, and joy. There are others that are exclusive to God. They are called incommunicable attributes. These include absolute power (omnipotence), inﬁnitude (omnipresence), and
perfect knowledge (omniscience), and self-existence (aseity). Among
these is autonomy. God made the law, rules through law, and answers
to nobody except by choice (Job 38–39).
I. Christian Covenantalism
Law from on High
Sovereignty. God is the source of law because He is the Creator.
He established the regularities of nature: biological (“kind”) and astronomical (“heavens”). He controls whatever comes to pass (Job 38–39).
70
Theonomy vs. Autonomy
71
He does this predictably most of the time. There is covenantal regularity between the obedience of societies and external blessings (Deuteronomy 28:1–14) and also between the disobedience of societies and
external cursings (Deuteronomy 28:15–66). God is completely in control at all times.
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, O house of Israel,
cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the
clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel
(Jeremiah 18:5–6).
God, in His self-revelation to Job, described the regularities of
nature as entirely due to Him. He described Himself as a father to
nature, for He was nature’s creator.
By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon
the earth? Who hath divided a watercourse for the overﬂowing of
waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; To cause it to rain on
the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no
man; To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud
of the tender herb to spring forth? Hath the rain a father? or who
hath begotten the drops of dew? (Job 38:24–28).
The God of creation is the God of law, for the creation has been
placed by God under law. This is comprehensive law: the laws of
nature, including human nature. There is no other source of law. There
is therefore no other God.
Authority. God has delegated authority to mankind based on His
image in man (Genesis 1:26–28). This image includes a working knowledge of God’s law. First, there is special revelation to covenant-keepers—the adopted sons of Christ—regarding specially revealed law. The
author of the epistle to the Hebrews said that the law of God is written
in the hearts of Christians. This, he said, has fulﬁlled the prophecy of
Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32:31–33). This assertion appears twice in
Hebrews (8:10–11; 10:15–17). Second, there is general revelation to all
the sons of Adam. Paul called this the work of the law.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto
themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean
while accusing or else excusing one another (Romans 2:14–15).
72
GOD’S COVENANTS
David in Psalm 119, in the longest sustained theme in any passage
in the Bible, rejoiced in his knowledge of God’s law. He attributed to
his knowledge of God’s law his superiority over princes, the ancients,
and covenant-breakers
Princes also did sit and speak against me: but thy servant did medit ate in thy statutes (Psalm 119:23).
The wicked have waited for me to destroy me: but I will consider thy
testimonies (Psalm 119:95).
I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies
are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I
keep thy precepts (Psalm 119:99–100).
Law. God’s law is the basis of fulﬁlling the dominion covenant
(Genesis 1:26–28). This includes both Bible-revealed law and general
law. God’s special revelation of His precepts to His people is the basis
of their success in history.
If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her
increase, and the trees of the ﬁeld shall yield their fruit. And your
threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach
unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and
dwell in your land safely. And I will give peace in the land, and ye
shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil
beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land
(Leviticus 26:3–6).
And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the
voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will
set thee on high above all nations of the earth: And all these blessings
shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the
voice of the LORD thy God. Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and
blessed shalt thou be in the ﬁeld. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy
body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the ﬂocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy
basket and thy store (Deuteronomy 28:1–5).
Judgment. God judges men in terms of His law. This applies to
eternity. “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may
have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into
the city” (Revelation 22:14). It also applies to history. David cried out
Theonomy vs. Autonomy
73
to God, “It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void
thy law” (Psalm 119:126).
LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph? How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the
workers of iniquity boast themselves? They break in pieces thy
people, O LORD, and aﬄict thine heritage. They slay the widow and
the stranger, and murder the fatherless. Yet they say, The LORD shall
not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that
planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not
see? He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that
teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? (Psalm 94:3–10).
God’s Bible-revealed law should therefore be used by all men to
judge themselves as well as others. Covenant-keeping men will eventually judge the angels in terms of God’s Bible-revealed law. “Know ye
not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to
this life?” (1 Corinthians 6:3). God’s Bible-revealed law is good.
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing
this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless
and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that deﬁle themselves with
mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there
be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:8 –
10).
These laws were all part of the Mosaic law. So were their required
civil sanctions.
Kingdom. A king who does not enforce his law is not a king. The
meaning of “kingdom” is “the realm in which a king enforces his law.”
God enforces His law in His domain. The kingdom of God should be
manifested to all men because of its justice.
Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD
my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye
go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom
and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear
all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God
so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call
upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes
74
GOD’S COVENANTS
and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this
day? (Deuteronomy 4:5–8).
If this is not visible to covenant-breakers, then God’s people are
either not ruling according to God’s standards or else not ruling at all.
Conclusion. God’s law is written in the hearts of covenant-keepers: special revelation. The work of the law is written in the hearts of
all men: general revelation. The ﬁrst is covenant-keeping man’s tool of
dominion. The second is covenant-breaking man’s tool of dominion
until he rebels by disobeying, when it becomes the judicial basis of his
disinheritance in history. “The face of the LORD is against them that
do evil, to cut oﬀ the remembrance of them from the earth” (Psalm
34:16).
Legitimacy of authority comes from adherence to God’s law. Legitimacy is delegated by God to individuals by means of the people who
are represented by them. The mark of legitimacy is obedience to God’s
law, which includes special revelation and natural revelation, with special revelation as primary: the Bible over all other sources of law.
II. Non-Christian Covenantalism
Law from Below
Sovereignty. Modern man claims that all physical law arose after
the Big Bang. How, he does not say. Biological law appeared when life
evolved out of non-life. How this actually happened, he does not say.
Exactly how the laws of life are diﬀerent from the laws of inanimate
matter, he does not say. Some think there is no diﬀerence. Others
think there is.
Law is universal, yet there is change. Random events change the
environment. In biology, these random events are called mutations. In
physics, they are called the quantum. In the impersonal competition
between the ﬁxed, impersonal laws of the macrocosm vs. the random,
impersonal events of life, the only sure prophecy is the heat death of
the universe: the irreversible outcome of the second law of thermodynamics. So, prior to the universal death of the universe, man is under
no personal authority who hands down the law. Man is an autonomous sovereign. The “deep ecologists” deny this, but only in the sense
that mankind may make environmental mistakes that violate impersonal natural law, and therefore will suﬀer the negative consequences.
Man is therefore autonomous.
Theonomy vs. Autonomy
75
Authority. Man is said to understand some of these laws of nature,
including his own nature. He is self-conscious. Therefore, he possesses
lawful authority over all his domain, which is deﬁned as “anything that
mankind as a species can control at the moment.” There is no higher
personal being who imposes law on man. Only nature imposes law on
man, and men may be able to discover laws that will enable him to escape the eﬀects of unwanted laws. Man is therefore autonomous.
Law. Law is seen as the product of impersonal nature, as interpreted by man. Nature is autonomous from God. Man, a product of
nature, is therefore autonomous from God.
The law-order governing nature is impersonal. It can be discovered by men. In contrast, the laws governing mankind are personal,
for they relate to man. These laws can be discovered. Some legal theorists add that civil laws take on the characteristics of law merely by
their formal declaration by certiﬁed and legitimate agents of the civil
government. These laws are laws only because the State declares them
and then enforces them. On this point, there has been a philosophical
division, but on the whole, the “declarationists” have won the battle intellectually and surely politically.
Judgment. Man alone declares the law. Nature is silent and unselfconscious. Thus, man’s authority to discover, interpret, declare, and
enforce law puts him in charge of nature, including other men. This
means that experts who understand the law and its workings eventually gain the authority to declare and enforce the law.
The problem here is power. Some men understand the laws of
power. They may or may not understand the laws of nature, including
human nature. Thus, the laws governing politics may be—and seem to
be—diﬀerent from the both the impersonal laws of nature and the personal laws of social cooperation. The existence of interminable warfare
points to this conclusion. James wrote: “From whence come wars and
ﬁghtings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war
in your members?” (James 4:1). Autonomous man has no one judging
him. Yet he is not united. So, would-be autonomous man becomes
would-be autonomous men. The result is a potential war of all against
all. This is how Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651) described mankind’s condition prior to the hypothetical social contract.
Kingdom. The kingdom of man is established by power that is
based on an understanding of law. Man extends his rule over impersonal nature by means of his understanding of impersonal natural law.
But, because mankind is part of nature, mankind becomes subject to
76
GOD’S COVENANTS
law-wielding power-seekers. Some men seek to gain power over the
others.
Would-be autonomous man gains liberty from nature through his
understanding of the laws governing nature. He escapes nature’s authority over him by exercising power over nature by means of law. But
in the division of labor, he eventually surrenders his political liberty to
experts, who use their specialized understanding of human nature and
motivation to subdue the masses by eliminating their political rivals.
So, modern man seeks personal freedom through power over nature
through law, yet he loses his freedom because of others’ superior
power over nature, including human nature. Knowledge is power, and
some people have better knowledge than others. The kingdom of man
therefore becomes a battleground of power-seekers.
Conclusion. Autonomy from God in the ﬁeld of law oﬃcially
places sovereignty over nature into the hands of mankind, who alone
in nature is self-conscious. Man becomes God by default. But mankind
is divided. This leads to a constant struggle for power. There is more
than one person who seeks the legal authority to speak on behalf of
man.
Mankind seeks legitimacy. In the world of Darwinian evolution, legitimacy comes only from power, for the struggle for power reveals the
possessor of the supreme knowledge: the laws of power. Knowledge is
power—speciﬁcally, the knowledge of the law and the will and ability
to implement it. Power reveals the ﬁttest who survive.
Conclusion
God is over law. The creation is under law. God can and has existed independently of nature and law. The creation has always existed
dependently on law.
God answers to nobody in terms of law. Man answers to God in
terms of God’s law.
God establishes and then announces law. Men discover and then
announce law.
God enforces the law through sanctions. Men enforce the law
through sanctions.
Darwinists believe that mankind answers to nobody because
nobody lays down the law to man. Law is impersonal, unplanned, and
uncaring, for nature is impersonal, unplanned, and uncaring. But
nature has produced man, who is personal, planning, and caring. So,
Theonomy vs. Autonomy
77
man now lays down the law to nature. Man therefore lays down the
law to man. Clever Darwinists want to become the people laying down
the law to others, not the people having the law laid down to them.
There are two forms of law: theonomy and autonomy. God alone is
autonomous. Darwinists argue that man is autonomous, not in the
sense of being lawless, but in the sense of laying down the law to the
creation. Yet the creation is the only source of law. There is no God.
The Darwinists’ argument is circular. Darwinism relies on a concept of autonomous, impersonal nature to establish man’s autonomy
from God, yet it also aﬃrms man’s authority over nature by invoking
man’s discovery and understanding of law and then its enforcement by
man. Autonomous nature is man’s shield from the idea of the God of
the Bible, yet it is also man’s plaything, the supplier of coherence and
raw materials for man’s dominion, i.e., the extension of man’s kingdom.
As Elijah told the Israelites on Mt. Carmel, choose this day whom
you will serve. In other words, decide whose law you will obey.
9
9
CASUISTRY VS. IDEOLOGY
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?
But we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16).
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that
pertain to this life? (1 Corinthians 6:3).
The covenantal issue here is judgment.
Judgment is an inescapable concept. It is never a question of judgment vs. no judgment. It is always a question of whose judgment.
The term casuistry means “the application of general principles of
moral law to speciﬁc cases.” The word is not in common use today.
There was a time when it was. In the Protestant world, casuistry faded
after 1700.
The term ideology means “the defense of self-interested actions by
means of a self-interested theory of the general good.” This has replaced the myth of neutrality, which has faded in popularity since the
mid-1960s.
I. Christian Covenantalism
Judgment from on High
Sovereignty. God judges all things. He judges them in history. He
will judge them retroactively at the end of history.
First, history:
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice
of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee,
saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in
sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and
thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the
ﬁeld; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return
78
Casuistry vs. Ideology
79
unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and
unto dust shalt thou return (Genesis 3:17–19).
Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was
written. And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE,
TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE;
God hath numbered thy kingdom, and ﬁnished it. TEKEL; Thou art
weighed in the balances, and art found wanting (Daniel 5:24–27).
Second, at the end of history:
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose
face the earth and the heaven ﬂed away; and there was found no
place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened,
which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those
things which were written in the books, according to their works
(Revelation 20:11–12).
Judgment involves four things: discovery, evaluation, declaration,
and the imposition of sanctions. God makes it clear that these are sequential decisions, not simultaneous. Before God imposed sanctions
on Adam and Eve, He examined them. He made an evaluation of their
guilt. Then He passed sentence on them. Finally, He imposed a negative sanction: expulsion.
Judges make evaluations. Every man is a judge. Adam blamed the
woman and therefore God, who had given him the woman. Eve
blamed the serpent and therefore God, who had placed her in proximity to the serpent. The serpent said nothing, for he was asked nothing.
Nevertheless, God cursed it. Mankind was called on to make evaluations. The serpent was not.
Authority. God’s judgment is the archetype for man’s judgment.
Judgment is a communicable attribute of God. Man must judge. This
is basic to his task on earth. This is basic to the dominion covenant,
which deﬁned man in relation to God and the creation (Genesis 1:26–
28). God is over man. He delegates authority to mankind. He calls
upon each man to make decisions in terms of His Bible-revealed law
or moral principles derived from the Bible.
The classic example of this is Jesus’ ministry, which was marked by
a series of challenges from God-haters, who called on Him to make
verbal judgments. The archetype example took place at the beginning
of His ministry, immediately after His return from 40 days in the wilderness, which began immediately after His baptism.
80
GOD’S COVENANTS
Jesus was approached by Satan, who challenged Him to do three
things. One by one, Jesus applied God’s Bible-revealed principles of
law to counter all three courses of action suggested by Satan (Matthew
4; Luke 4). In the Matthew account, Jesus replied “it is written” to all
three. In the Luke account, He replied “it is written” twice and “it is
said” once. Jesus, as perfect man, applied God’s three most appropriate
universal principles to the three speciﬁc cases. This was casuistry. He
refused to submit to Satan.
Law. Law provides the fundamental principle of thought and action. Law may be in the form of a general principle, as each of the Ten
Commandments is. Or it may be in the form of a speciﬁc law, or case
law, from which a general principle can be derived. The best example
of this procedure in Scripture is the application by Paul of an obscure
law, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn:
(Deuteronomy 25:4). He applied this civil law to the church: Honor
church elders.
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture
saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And,
The labourer is worthy of his reward (1 Timothy 5:17–18).
There is a connection between general legal and moral principles
and speciﬁc cases in history. If there were not, there could be no predictability for moral cause and eﬀect. God’s judgments would then be,
humanly speaking, capricious and arbitrary.
Judgment. Connections exist among general legal principles, case
laws, and speciﬁc events in history. God establishes these connections
by means of His decree for history. Then He evaluates what the results
are. This is the pattern found in Genesis 1. Day by day, God pronounced His day’s work good.
The language of biblical judgment is that of weights and measures.
Just as a weight is a ﬁxed standard that is to be placed on one side of a
scale in order to establish the quantity of another substance on the
other side, so is justice.
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight,
or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin,
shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of
the land of Egypt. Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all
my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:35–37).
Casuistry vs. Ideology
81
Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a
small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just
measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land
which the LORD thy God giveth thee (Deuteronomy 25:13–15).
When the scale is even—straight across—the weight of the unknown substance is thereby established by means of the known standard. But scales are never perfect, nor is any man’s perception perfect.
Still, men can and do come to an agreement in the sale of some quantity of an item. So also can they come to an agreement in a court of law.
God evaluates, declares, and imposes sanctions. Men must do the
same. They must also do what God dies not need to do: discover the
applicable law.
Kingdom. God’s kingdom is extended in history when men cooperate to extend their joint rule under God. This requires the division
of labor. Men must cooperate in order to maximize their eﬃciency:
output per unit of input. Paul used the analogy of a body and its parts
to describe the church.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members
of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to
drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If
the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is
it therefore not of the body? (1 Corinthians 12:12–15).
For the church to function in this way, there must be a way to
settle disputes. Paul also wrote:
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the
unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints
shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye
unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall
judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? (1 Corinthians 6:1–3).
Biblical justice requires biblical law. It also requires Bible-informed
human judgment. The result of Bible-based judgment is a functioning
Bible-based community. Bible-based communities must then cooperate in order to establish a Bible-based civilization. This is the visible
kingdom of Christ.
82
GOD’S COVENANTS
Conclusion. Casuistry is the application of general moral and legal
principles to speciﬁc cases. Biblical casuistry is the application of Bible-revealed moral and legal principles to speciﬁc cases. Biblical casuistry establishes justice. Nothing else does. Everything else is some
version of false weights and measures.
II. Non-Christian Covenantalism
Judgment from Below
Sovereignty. Darwinism asserts that the universe has no moral
principles of law. The universe was originally impersonal. There was
no self-conscious agent who compared events in terms of their conformity to established principles of moral law. There was only impersonal physical law and impersonal random change, either the quantum
(subatomic change) or mutation (biology).
Then man evolved. Man was a leap of being. The ﬁrst man’s mind
and the ﬁrst woman’s mind were contemporaneous macro-mutations
that cannot be explained in terms of nature’s otherwise minute competitive advantages for survival in a changing environment. With this
unexplained evolutionary leap of being, consciousness appeared in the
universe.
The supreme mark of man’s sovereignty is his understanding of
cause and eﬀect—not just in speciﬁc cases but in general. He can compare a speciﬁc outcome of a speciﬁc event with general patterns of
cause and eﬀect, which in the natural (impersonal) sciences are called
models. In the social sciences, these patterns are sometimes called
ideal types. He can make predictions. He can discover patterns in one
area and apply them in another. The use of mathematics in the natural
sciences is the archetype. The problem is, this correlation between the
logic of mathematics and the operations of the impersonal universe
cannot be explained logically. It is in fact unreasonable.
Authority. A man can use his knowledge of general principles or
patterns to impose his will over nature, including other men. He gains
power, meaning supremacy, by means of his ability to predict the outcome of events. No other species possesses the ability to predict the
outcome of events by means of articulated general patterns. This ability has given mankind authority over nature. (Assumptions: Angels are
mythical, and beings from outer space have not yet placed mankind
under their dominion.)
Casuistry vs. Ideology
83
Darwinists identify the source of these patterns in nature: nature
itself. These patterns are said to exist independently of man, except at
the subatomic level (quantum), where observation is believed to aﬀect
the outcome of non-human events. Because non-quantum patterns
exist independently of man, they are said to be morally neutral toward
man or anything else. In fact, the word “moral” has no relevance to the
laws or patterns of nature. They are not self-conscious.
Because man’s mind can perceive these patterns, his knowledge of
how things work is said to be morally neutral. In fact, with respect to
the observation and explanation of how things work, the scientiﬁc
ideal is said to be moral neutrality. Anyway, this was true of nineteenth-century science. The knowledge of how things work is understood as a tool, neither good nor bad. The issue of morality arises only
with respect to the application of these principles to human ends. The
exercise of authority raises the issue of neutrality.
Law. Nature’s patterns of causation are said to be morally neutral.
They are understood as not being under God, nor do they self-consciously operate to the beneﬁt or disadvantage of any creature. The
problem comes with patterns of behavior among men. The Darwinists
are divided here. Some of them deny that these patterns have moral
implications. These people tend to use the word “behaviors” (psychologists). Others—the vast majority—do believe that patterns of human
action are shaped by moral considerations. The problem is in identifying which moral considerations. They seem to multiply with the number of observers and theorists.
Are moral principles objectively true? The percentage of Darwinists and other modernists who publicly aﬃrm that any moral system is
objectively valid (legitimate) has steadily declined since 1859, at least
for anything that was not closely associated with Adoph Hitler. Only
with respect to Hitler is objective morality invoked by virtually all
commentators. This is objective morality’s last stand.
Moral principles are said to be individual. Individuals assess the
morality of any act. Thus, law moves away from the idea of objective
morality as the product of universal moral reason toward subjective
morality as the product of imputation by individuals. It therefore
moves from point three of the covenant to point four.
This undermines the concept of moral neutrality. To be morally
neutral used to mean “in accord with universal principles of morality.”
It also meant the existence of self-attesting moral principles. It meant
that rational people who have no self-interested axes to grind will
84
GOD’S COVENANTS
aﬃrm these general moral principles, which were said to be as ﬁrm
and as binding as astronomical laws, such as gravity. (By the way, the
humanist has no explanation for gravity—attraction at a distance
without any physical connection.) But Darwinism has undermined
this faith in universal moral principles. There is no ﬁxed morality in a
world of evolutionary biological change.
Judgment. Individuals impute meaning to reality. This includes
moral meaning. Morality becomes the product of individual imputation of justice and right action. The question is: How can there be a
universal moral law in a world of autonomous individuals, each imputing value and importance, each deciding what to do on his own authority, each exercising personal judgment?
Faith in neutrality steadily disappears. Nothing is seen as morally
neutral. Everything is seen as self-interested. Nothing is seen as objective. Everything is seen as subjective. Neutrality is replaced by ideology,
which is the worldview of a self-interested individual. Groups are collections of self-interested individuals. Their members defend their
self-interested actions by devising an explanation based on the common good: an ideology. But there is no common good. There is only
individual self-interest and group action to beneﬁt one group at the
expense of another group.
Kingdom. The kingdom of man is a cacaphonic kingdom. The
temporary alliances of self-interested individuals can and are thwarted
or overturned by events, including the actions of more powerful alliances. The kingdom of man operates in terms of power, not moral
principle—of ideology, not objective morality. Probably the clearest
statement of this outlook is Mao Tse Tung’s summary.
Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out
of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that the Party commands the
gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet,
having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the
powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools,
create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has
been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a
gun. (“Problems of War and Strategy,” November 6, 1938)
What then becomes of the power of voluntary cooperation? What
of Paul’s analogy of the church as a body, with each member cooperating with the other?
Casuistry vs. Ideology
85
Conclusion. In the world of Darwinism, there is no legitimate appeal to a higher law that is enforced by a supreme judge. There is no
common morality. There is only the struggle for existence. There is a
quest for personal power that is balanced only by a quest for personal
escape. There is only ideology: a defense of power held and power
sought. There is no objective truth, no objective morality. No one is
neutral. Everyone is self-interested.
Conclusion
James put it well: “From whence come wars and ﬁghtings among
you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” (James 4:1).
God has a way to replace lust with love. This is redemption. But
redemption is not merely individual. It is not souls-only. It is comprehensive. Wherever sin visibly reigns, Christ’s kingdom must visibly
reign. There is no neutral area in which something other than God’s
law may legitimately reign in place of God’s law. There is no principle
of non-biblical casuistry that legitimately replaces the application of
biblical law to men’s actions.
There was a time when men who rejected the God of the Bible,
Christ’s work of redemption, and biblical morality suggested an alternative social theory. They insisted that the existence of universal principles of natural law make possible social cooperation. But Darwinism
has undermined that faith. There cannot be a legitimate Darwinian
appeal to universal and therefore unchanging principles of law, including moral law. We live in an evolving world. There are no constants,
other than the speed of light. Maybe.
Men must make judgments in history. The two questions are: (1)
Does a man make judgments as a creature who imitates the God of the
Bible, who also makes judgments, or (2) does he make them as if he
were autonomous from the God of the Bible? Jesus warned: “He that is
not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth abroad” (Matthew 12:30).
10
10
THEOCRACY VS. DEMOCRACY
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from
you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matthew
21:43).
The covenantal issue here is kingdom.
Kingdom is an inescapable concept. It is never a question of kingdom vs. no kingdom. It is always a question of whose kingdom.
Who rules the kingdom? The classical Greek word for rule is
kratos. Kratos was a spirit (daimon) of power and sovereign rule.
Kratos was a winged god, an enforcer sent by Zeus. One of his three
siblings was Nike (victory), whose motto for mankind was probably
“Don’t do it!”
There are two major claimants for the throne of sovereign power:
God and Satan. Both rule in history through delegated representatives:
men.
Satan, unlike God, is content to be represented by men who do not
acknowledge his sovereignty publicly, and who may deeply believe that
they are acting on their own authority. This has always been the case.
The serpent did not suggest to Eve that she should worship Satan or
swear an oath of loyalty to him. He suggested only that Adam and Eve
would become as gods if they ate from a tree. This is still the form in
which the major covenantal temptations of life are presented by Satan
or his agents.
God, unlike Satan, is not content to be represented by men who do
not acknowledge his sovereignty publicly.
And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye
between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal,
then follow him. And the people answered him not a word (1 Kings
18:21).
86
Theocracy vs. Democracy
87
The people (demos) still prefer to answer not a word. As with
Satan’s covenantal representatives, most of God’s oath-bound covenantal representatives today are convinced that God does not require
any such public acknowledgment, that He is content, just as Satan is
content, to let men aﬃrm their own self-made civil covenants, by
means of a formal or informal oath to other men or their covenant
documents.
Democracy is form of theocracy. It is the rule of a god: would-be
autonomous mankind. Similarly, autonomy is theonomy: the law of
this one true god.
I. Christian Covenantalism
A Kingdom from on High
Sovereignty. This is the issue of origins. I wrote in Chapter 6,
“Why is this issue so important? Because origins are the source of sovereignty in history. Rival theories of origins reveal rival theories of sovereignty. Rival theories of origins reveal rival covenants.”
In speaking of Christ’s kingdom, we should begin with Christ’s
words regarding His kingdom.
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus,
and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered
him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests
have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered,
My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world,
then would my servants ﬁght, that I should not be delivered to the
Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence (John 18:33–36)
The issue was sovereignty. Pilate represented a rival kingdom, a
rival sovereign. So did the Jews, who were in rebellion against God the
King, and who were about to be disinherited, with the kingdom
passing to a new nation: the church (Matthew 21:43).
Jesus’ answer should have made it clear to Pilate that he was dealing with God, a higher source of sovereignty. Jesus openly claimed that
the origin of His kingdom was not in the realm of history. He was
claiming a supernatural origin for His kingdom.
Pilate paid no attention. His spiritual heirs have not paid any attention. But, sadly, neither have most of Christ’s spiritual heirs in our era.
They interpret Christ’s words in the way that Pilate did, namely, that
88
GOD’S COVENANTS
Jesus’ kingdom has no inﬂuence in the civil aﬀairs of this world. They
line up with the humanists, who love to quote this verse. They all explain it as Jesus’ assertion of the irrelevance of Christ’s kingdom for
man’s political aﬀairs—and also all other kinds of aﬀairs, insist adulterous humanists.
What does the Greek text say? The phrase, “not of this world,” begins with the Greek work ek. This is Strong’s #1536, which you can
ﬁnd in Strong’s Concordance. Strong gives this as the word’s origin: “a
primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause. . . .” Ek is followed by
ouk, “not.” Then comes kosmou toutou, “this world.” This two-word
phase is in the genitive case, which is the case used for origins.
What does the text mean? This should be clear from the context. It
refers to the source or origin of Christ’s kingdom. His kingdom is not
of this world, meaning that its origin is not in this world. This was why
his earthly followers would not ﬁght to defend it, He told Pilate. Compare this with what He told Peter (John 18:10).
And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his
hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s,
and smote oﬀ his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy
sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with
the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and
he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? (Matthew 26:51–53).
Jesus was claiming absolute authority, meaning authority over
Rome. His kingdom is not from this world. It is over this world. This
world is the battleﬁeld between two rival kingdoms (Matthew 13:24–
30, 37–43).
Pilate at ﬁrst did not understand what Jesus was saying. Jesus then
clariﬁed it for him.
Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest
thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release
thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me,
except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me
unto thee hath the greater sin (John 19:10–11).
Despite this, ever since, those who reject the idea of Christ’s
earthly theocracy have interpreted Jesus’ words as if He had not ex-
Theocracy vs. Democracy
89
plained Himself clearly. They interpret “not of this world” as “not in
this world.” They deny His kingdom its rightful authority in history.
Authority. God has delegated to all mankind the task of subduing
the earth (Genesis 1:26–28). He has also delegated to His people, organized into an earthly church, the task of subduing rebellious nations
or peoples (ethnoi). This is to be done through preaching, teaching,
and baptizing.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto
me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world. Amen (Matthew 28:18–20).
Jesus claimed all power (point two). Teaching is hierarchical:
teacher to pupil (point two). Baptism is covenantal, a oath sign (point
four). It involves an aﬃrmation of obedience to God’s law (point
three).
The legitimate sphere of authority of the kingdom of Christ is the
whole earth: all nations, all peoples. It includes all four covenants: personal, ecclesiastical, family, and civil.
Law. Paul made it clear that God’s law is still binding in the New
Covenant era. He cited a series of laws, all of which were part of the
Mosaic covenant.
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that deﬁle themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons,
and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine (1
Timothy 1:9–10).
These laws are binding in all four covenants: personal, ecclesiastical, family, and civil. There is no statement in the Mosaic law that these
laws do not bind all four covenants. There is no statement in the New
Testament that they do not bind all four. These laws bind the entire
kingdom of Christ, which includes all four covenants.
Judgment. Judges must serve as casuists, applying God’s Bible-revealed laws to speciﬁc cases in history. They must render judgment.
This involves four steps. First, they must discover the applicable law
for the speciﬁc case. Second, they must interpret the law and its spe-
90
GOD’S COVENANTS
ciﬁc application. Third, they must declare: guilty or not guilty. Fourth,
in the case of verdicts of guilty, they must impose the speciﬁc sanction
that is required by the Bible in this case. This authority is limited to
each judge’s legitimate sphere of covenantal responsibility. This procedure includes the civil government, where civil magistrates are described as ministers of God (Romans 13:4).
The comprehensive judgments of all judges produces a kingdom.
This is another word for civilization. There is continual conﬂict
between the two competing kingdoms in every area of life. There is
therefore continual conﬂict to gain possession of the legitimate authority to serve as a judge in every area of life.
Kingdom. Christ’s kingdom expands over time. This is the message of Matthew 13, the parables of the kingdom.
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of
heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and
sowed in his ﬁeld: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it
is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that
the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof (Matthew
13:31–32).
Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like
unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal,
till the whole was leavened (Matthew 13:33).
The kingdom of Christ does not remain bottled up—not in the
hearts of covenant-keepers, not in the families of covenant-keepers,
and not in the churches of covenant-keepers. It does not remain conﬁned inside a narrowly deﬁned institutional church. “And the seventh
angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The
kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of
his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 11:15).
This is not limited to heaven, nor is it limited to the post-ﬁnal judgment world. Only Revelation 20:13–22:21 refers to the post-ﬁnal judgment world.
Conclusion. Christ’s kingdom is authorized by God to spread
wherever sin reigns. Sin has not been granted any zone of legitimate
authority. There is no neutrality in the battle between sin and righteousness. There are no neutral zones that have been granted immunity
from the consequences of sin. There are no neutral zones between
Satan’s kingdom and Christ’s. With respect to covenants,
Theocracy vs. Democracy
91
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ
with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an inﬁdel? (2
Corinthians 6:14–15).
II. Non-Christian Covenantalism
Kingdom from Below
Sovereignty. The Darwinian attributes original sovereignty to the
Big Bang, which lost authority within less than a trillionth of a second.
Then the law of evolution took over. There was no purpose in the uni verse, no plan, no self-consciousness. This condition prevailed—at
least in man’s sector of the cosmos—until man appeared. Now man is
sovereign by default, for man is purposeful, planning, and self-conscious. Man understands the scientiﬁc laws of evolution. Man proposes, and man disposes—all within the evolving boundaries of impersonal nature.
Authority. With the development of democratic theory ever since
the late seventeenth century, humanists have defended democracy,
meaning a system of political representation, as the sole voice of authority. This is corporate mankind.
The sovereign people long ago in the mists of time ratiﬁed a hypothetical political covenant with themselves Their heirs are now empowered by the terms of the covenant to select their representatives by
voting. These representatives are the oﬃcial voice of authority, unless
there is a written constitution, in which case they interpret the constitution.
For modern man, including most Darwinians, political power is
the greatest power in history, so political authority is the most legitimate form of institutional authority in history. The kingdom of man is
most visible in politics. In no other sphere of life does mankind exercise its corporate will to power with greater visible eﬀect.
This could change, of course. In a Darwinian world, anything can
change, just so long as the source of this change is not supernatural.
Perhaps some day, scientists working in an obscure laboratory will create a biological weapon that negates the power of civil government.
But, for now, political authority is supreme.
Democracy is always representative. The people, as a collective, do
not speak with one voice. Thus, gaining political power is the supreme
92
GOD’S COVENANTS
calling of those who wish to substitute a clear, uniﬁed declaration of
the people’s will for the people’s cacophonous and competing declarations.
Law. Law changes, for the cosmos evolves. There are no unchanging moral principles, for there is no unchanging impersonal external
environment, including the world of man. So, the kingdom of man is
itself evolving.
Salvation under democracy is by law: democratic legislation. Salvation is also by grace: the grace shown by political mankind, through
their representatives, to men as individuals or gathered together in
non-political associations, who oppose the sovereignty of man. The
supreme sinners for democratic man are those unbending people who
deny the sovereignty of man. They must be re-educated at government
expense.
Judgment. Judgment is ideological in the kingdom of Darwinian
man. It is not governed by the application of a grace-governed wisdom
that invokes ﬁxed moral laws. There are no ﬁxed moral laws in an
evolving universe. So, the judge is always subject to the question: “Are
you just making this up as you go along?” How can he prove that he
isn’t? It is easier to silence the critic by the imposition of sanctions,
either positive (buy him oﬀ) or negative (cut him oﬀ).
Sanctions must eventually be imposed by judges. Judges must defend their authority. The humanist kingdom of man extends beyond
politics, but never above politics. The sanctions that count most in this
kingdom are civil sanctions. The negative ones are the most feared,
and the positive ones are the most sought after, by believers in the
autonomous self-rule of man.
Modern man declares that civil government must oﬀer positive
sanctions as well as negative sanctions. But the kingdom of politics,
unlike the broader kingdom of man, is not creative. It lives on wealth
that is forcibly extracted from those under its jurisdiction. So, its positive sanctions must be funded by those people who pay taxes. Negative sanctions are placed on those citizens and residents who are identiﬁed as the losers in political conﬂicts. To the victors go the spoils.
Kingdom. The kingdom of man challenges the kingdom of Christ.
It is not neutral. It is all-encompassing. It is not modest. It does not accept the counter-claims of Christ’s kingdom. There is warfare unto
death. It is a war for civilization.
Expansion may be by stealth. “Equal time for Jesus!” It may be by
coercion. “Only evolution may be taught in tax-supported schools, for
Theocracy vs. Democracy
93
only evolution is both scientiﬁc and neutral.” But kingdom expansion
is the long-term goal of the covenant-breaker. He wants nothing to remind him of his sin, even though the creation constantly reminds him
(Romans 1:18–22). This is why, in the ﬁnal analysis, he is at war with
the creation. He is therefore at war with life. “But he that sinneth
against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death”
(Proverbs 8:36).
Conclusion. The kingdom of man is a rival kingdom to Christ’s
kingdom. The most visible form of the kingdom of man in the Dar winian West is democracy. Democracy is said to represent the true
sovereign in history, which is collective mankind. This is why there is a
constant push for a world civil government. A representative civil government is supposed to represent all humanity, the true god in history.
Yet there is also resistance to world government, for each man asks
himself: “Am I not as good as the next person?” Then he thinks to himself: “Actually, I’m a good deal better.” He may desire the autonomy
supposedly oﬀered by anarchy: a world without civil government or
civil sanctions, a world without taxes or coercive regulations. This is
the autonomy of the many.
Politics is a war for the votes of the democratic middle. But be cause political salvation is the salvation of democracy—from classical
Greece to the modern world—the push to the one-State world persists. The one-worlders looks at national democracies and announce:
“Your God is too small.”
Conclusion
The expansion of God’s kingdom comes at the expense of Satan’s
kingdom. Those in Satan’s kingdom are steadily disinherited in history.
This is the message of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Inheritance and disinheritance are two sides of the same kingdom coin,
just as positive and negative sanctions are two sides of judgment’s coin.
For evildoers shall be cut oﬀ: but those that wait upon the LORD,
they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall
not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not
be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves
in the abundance of peace (Psalm 37:9–11).
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5).
Satan has a kingdom. It is divided.
94
GOD’S COVENANTS
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom
divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house
divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he
is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I
by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them
out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the
Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else
how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he ﬁrst bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with
me scattereth abroad (Matthew 12:25–30).
The question is: Will it fall only at the end of time, having achieved
a major victory in every realm of life? Will this fall be discontinuous?
Will God snatch victory at the ﬁnal judgment out of what appears to
be a Satanic victory? Or will Satan’s defeat be gradual, culminating in a
last-ditch eﬀort of a defeated army?
Jesus described Satan’s defensive eﬀorts: “And I say also unto thee,
That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). He did not
say that the gates of the church will prevail against Satan’s onslaught.
Cii
CONCLUSION TO PART II:
Covenantal Social Theory
In the modern West, the two main contenders for the allegiance of
men are Christianity and Darwinism. Islam may become a third contender in the future, but it is not a large enough interest group yet.
Christianity has a speciﬁc social outlook. It teaches that a personal
Creator God is sovereign in history and eternity. This God has delegated to mankind the responsibility for serving as God’s agent over
nature. God has established the laws of nature and the laws of human
society. He also has established corporate sanctions, positive and negative, for obeying His laws. The implementation of these sanctions,
either by individuals and their institutions or by God directly shapes
history. Sanctions determine who inherits in history and who is disinherited. This is the basis of the triumph of one kingdom over the other.
Christians are divided over this ﬁnal issue. Some believe that Satan’s
kingdom will visibly triumph (amillennialists) until the day of ﬁnal
judgment, while others believe that Christ’s kingdom will triumph
(postmillennialists and premillennialists). At the end of history, this
God will judge all things that all men have ever done.
Darwinism has another view of the way things work out. They see
the origin of all things in an impersonal Big Bang. They see the end of
all things in the impersonal heat death of the universe. There is meaning for neither event at the time that each event takes place. There was
no self-conscious Creator at the beginning of time, and there will be
no self-conscious Judge at the end of time. In between, there is meaning only when man imputes it, unless there is another species with this
ability elsewhere in the universe, either now or in the future.
Each view proclaims a god. For Christians, this God is the Creator
God of the Bible. For Darwinists, this god is nature. In both views,
man is part of nature.
Each view claims a hierarchical system of authority. For Christians,
the God of the Bible is represented by mankind. The voice of authority
is the Bible. For Darwinists, the god of nature, which is not self-con95
96
GOD’S COVENANTS
scious and does not speak, is represented by mankind. Mankind
speaks alone, and so takes on the function of divinity: no higher court
of appeal. Mankind becomes functionally divine. He is the sole voice of
authority, but he is divided. Next, each view has a view of institutional
authority in church, family, and state, reach with its own hierarchy and
independent authority. For Darwinists, the god of nature is represented by mankind. The hierarchy is diﬀerent: state, church (school) and
family, with one hierarchical chain of command.
Each view has a view of law. Both views see law as an expression of
a god, so both systems are technically theonomic. Christians see moral
law as permanent, for God is unchanging. Darwinists see moral law as
changing, for the universe is evolving.
Each view has systems of sanctions, positive and negative. Christianity sees man’s task as discovering, interpreting, declaring, and enforcing God’s unchanging laws of nature and morality. Darwinists see
man’s task as discovering, interpreting, declaring, and enforcing
nature’s evolving impersonal laws and man’s personal laws.
Each view proclaims a theocracy, for each proclaims a god who
rules supreme. Christians proclaim that the God of the Bible rules over
the creation through a personal kingdom. Darwinists proclaim that
the functional god of nature, mankind, rules over the creation in a personal kingdom.
Each view deﬁnes its terms diﬀerently. The war for the minds of
men is waged in terms of these rival deﬁnitions. This is why dictionaries are important. This is why linguistic usage is important. He who
deﬁnes terms that his opponent accepts has gained a tremendous advantage in the competition. This is why competition for control over
education has been a battleground between the two kingdoms. It is a
battle over civilization’s inheritance. This was true in the days of
Nebuchadnezzar’s school for the Hebrew youths. This remains true
today.
Consider deﬁnitions. The word theocracy is a term of opprobrium
today. Christians fear being labeled theocrats. They fear not being regarded as democrats. Yet there was a time before the triumph of
democracy when Christians referred to the visible, corporate rule of
God’s representatives as a theocracy, or at least a kingdom. Today, they
still refer to God’s kingdom, but they have in mind only three of the
four covenantal arrangements: individual, ecclesiastical, and familial.
The civil government is seen as democratic, i.e., no confession of Trinitarian faith as a requirement for the franchise. This pleases the non-
Conclusion to Part II: Covenantal Social Theory
97
Trinitarians. They get to establish the ground rules and then change
them whenever they have enough votes. They have deﬁned the “cracy”
to ﬁt their agenda.
Deﬁnitions are important. So are confessions of faith.
C
CONCLUSION
Here are the ﬁve sequential aspects of the one deﬁning covenant.
First, God sovereignly announces it representatively, prior to Adam:
transcendence (point one—but without presence). Second, God in person places Adam under it by establishing a testing boundary with its
deadly sanction: hierarchy (point two). Third, Adam violates it by
transgressing the boundary: law (point three). By this transgression, he
brings himself and humanity under a new covenant, which is under
Satan’s illegitimate authority. Fourth, Jesus Christ, as the representative second Adam or “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), rises from the
dead, thereby inﬂicting a mortal wound on Satan, as promised by God
(Genesis 3:15): sanctions (point four). Fifth, the ﬁnal resurrection of
humanity occurs, when God also imposes the ﬁnal sanction against
Satan and his host, both demonic and human. “And death and hell
were cast into the lake of ﬁre. This is the second death. And whosoever
was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of ﬁre”
(Revelation 20:14–15). This inaugurates the eternal inheritance and
disinheritance (point ﬁve). From this point on, covenant-keepers will
spend eternity fulﬁlling the original dominion covenant. Rest and recreation will accompany an uncursed work week. There will be a day
of rest each week. But there will be no more blue Mondays. They will
be called Secondday, and they will be blessed.
The sequence is manifested covenantally in history by individuals,
churches, families, and civil governments. It will not be manifested in
eternity by families and civil governments.
Satan’s covenant is exclusively historical. It was inaugurated by
Adam and Eve at their covenant meal at the tree. It will end at the ﬁnal
judgment. As with God’s covenant, it has two realms in history for
mankind: physical and spiritual. It also has two realms cosmically: natural and supernatural (hell).
98
BIBLIOGRAPHY
B
Covenant Model
Kline, Meredith G. By Oath Consigned. Eerdmans, 1972.
______. Treaty of the Great King. Eerdmans, 1963.
North, Gary. The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. “General Introduction
(1987)” Institute for Christian Economics, 1987. (http://bit.ly/
gndomcov)
Sutton, Ray R. That You May Prosper. Institute for Christian Economics, 1987, 1992. (http://bit.ly/rstymp)
Darwinism
Himmelfarb, Gertrude. Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution.
Doubleday, 1959.
North, Gary. “From Cosmic Impersonalism to Humanistic Sovereignty.” Appendix A. The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. Institute
for Christian Economics, 1982, 1987. (http://bit.ly/gndomcov)
Cosmology
Big Bang timeline. (http://bit.ly/BigBangTime)
Gribben, John. In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat. Bantam, 1984.
Higgo, James. “A Lazy Layman’s Guide to Quantum Physics.” 1999.
(http://bit.ly/LazyQuantum)
North, Gary. Is the World Running Down? Chapters 1, 2. Institute for
Christian Economics, 1988. (http://bit.ly/gnworld)
Heat Death of the Universe timeline
Short: 1 followed by 200 zeroes years. (http://bit.ly/200zeroes)
Long: 1 followed by 1,000 zeroes years. (http://bit.ly/1000zeroes)
99